JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that adverse remarks recorded in ACR of petitioner were expugned by the Inspector General who is only authority to pass the order of expunction. This order is of dated 13.4.99 and copy of which is placed on record as Annex. 4. The petitioner was eligible for consideration of promotion to the next higher post but by order dated 16/18.10.99, the Director General, Boarder Security Force without any authority of law passed the order just reversing the order passed by competent authority i.e. Inspector General dated 13.4.99 (Annex. 4). Because of this order, promotion to the petitioner was denied. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, as per Apendix "A" to the ACR procedure & Instructions 1991 (BSF), reporting Officer is the Commandant and Reviewing Officer is DIG and Accepting Authority is concerned I.G. Either in the rules or in any bye-laws, there is no provision for reconsideration of above acceptance report of Accepting Authority even by Director General, BSF and therefore, order dated 16/18.10.99 is without jurisdiction, hence deserves to be set aside. It is also submitted that there was no justification for even reviewing the earlier order passed in favour of petitioner because no ground exists for review. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Director General, BSF found that I.G. did not examine the Officer's representation as per prescribed procedure and had not examined the record in detailed, therefore, the Director General, BSF passed the order Annex. 8. So far as power of Director General, BSF in the matter regarding ACR, its review and its acceptance by Accepting Authority and power to set aside any of the order passed by Accepting Authority has not been shown, therefore, in view of Appendix "A" to ACR procedure and Instructions 1991 (BSF), the order Annex. 8 dated 16/18.10.99 is found to be without jurisdiction and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. Hence set aside. Since the refusal of promotion to the petitioner is on the basis of order dated 16/18.10.99, therefore, order Annex. 9 dated 30.11.99 also deserves to be set aside and respondents are directed to reconsider the case of petitioner for grant of promotion by ignoring impugned order dated 16/18.10.99 from the date when persons junior to-him were given promotion. Since the refusal of promotion to the petitioner is on the basis of order dated 16/18.10.99, therefore, order Annex. 9 dated 30.11.99 also deserves to be set aside and respondents are directed to reconsider the case of petitioner for grant of promotion by ignoring impugned order dated 16/18.10.99 from the date when persons junior to-him were given promotion. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of aforesaid observations.Writ Petition Allowed. *******