JUDGMENT Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. Appellant Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (in short 'ONGC') was respondent No. 2 in the writ petition filed by respondent (writ petitioner), Dinesh Chandra Biswas. By the judgement and order dated December 7 and 21, 1999 a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition. This appeal is against that judgement and order. 2. By the impugned judgement and order the learned Judge directed the appellant (ONGC) to reconsider the respondent (writ petitioner) for promotion with effect from April 1, 1982 to the post of Superintendent (P & A) to which he had been promoted with effect from January 1, 1985. 3. On May 27, 1982 appellant (ONGC) issued an Office Memorandum (Annexure-'C' to writ petition) to notify a decision. The decision was that as a one time exception all its Class III employees who as on April 1, 1982 had put in at least 18 years of service in Class III posts would be considered by appropriate Departmental Promotion Committees for promotion from April 1, 1982 by suitable up gradation of the posts. 4. Being eligible in terms of said decision, on May 6, 1983 (ref. Annexure-'E' to writ petition) the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short 'DPC') considered the respondent (writ petitioner) alongwith others for promotion to the post of Superintendent (P & A) with effect from April 1, 1982. While a large number of his juniors were promoted, respondent (writ petitioner) was not promoted for low gradings recorded in his annual confidential reports as a result of adverse remarks made therein. 5. Consequently, in 1984 respondent (writ petitioner) moved a writ petition being Matter No. 1099 of 1984. In an affidavit dated May 31, 1985 (Annexure 'A' to affidavit-in-reply) filed in that writ petition, appellant (ONGC) stated that a decision had been taken to expunge the adverse entries recorded in the respondent's (writ petitioner's) annual confidential report. 6. Said writ petition of 1984 was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court by an order dated June 12, 1985 (Annexure-'A' to writ petition). The relevant sentence of that order was: "In the circumstances the ld. Lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondents have no objection to an order being passed to expunge those adverse entries in the A.C.R. of the petitioner, and such order is passed". The relevant sentence of that order was: "In the circumstances the ld. Lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondents have no objection to an order being passed to expunge those adverse entries in the A.C.R. of the petitioner, and such order is passed". Appellant (ONGC) was directed by that order to consider case of respondent (writ petitioner) for promotion. 7. Ultimately by an office order dated January 14, 1987 (Annexure-'B' to writ petition) respondent (writ petitioner) was promoted to the post of Superintendent (P & A) with effect from January 1, 1985. Consequent upon his promotion the post held by the respondent (writ petitioner), immediately before his promotion, was upgraded to the post of Superintendent (P & A). This direction was given by the same office order. 8. By representations dated March 7, 1987, January 18, 1990; and July 26, 1991 (collectively Annexure-'E' to writ petition) respondent (writ petitioner) contended before appellant (ONGC) that on the expunction of the adverse remarks he was entitled to the promotion with effect from April 1, 1982. 9. In representation dated March 7, 1987 (Annexure-'E' to writ petition) he mentioned that the Director (Personnel) of appellant (ONGC) in letters No. DPC/Supdt./TF/84 dated August 10, 1984 and September 21, 1984 had stated that for promotion under the stagnation policy to the post of Superintendent (P & A) with effect from April 1, 1982 respondent (writ petitioner) had been considered by the DPC alongwith other eligible candidates, but he was found unfit due to adverse remarks in annual confidential report. 10. In his representation dated July 26, 1991 (Annexure-'E' to writ petition) respondent (writ petitioner) stated that he had come to learn from Head Quarter's letter dated February 2, 1991 that although the adverse remarks had been expunged from the annual confidential reports, the gradings based on those adverse remarks, however, remained untouched and unchanged due to office error. He requested the authorities to call for fresh annual confidential reports from concerned office and record fresh ratings. 11. Failing to get relief from appellant (ONGC), respondent (writ petitioner) moved the second writ petition being Matter No. 1124 of 1992 (subsequently renumbered as W.P. No. 1124 of 1992). The final judgement and order passed in this writ petition is the subject matter of the present appeal. 12. Appellant (ONGC) contested the writ petition by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. 11. Failing to get relief from appellant (ONGC), respondent (writ petitioner) moved the second writ petition being Matter No. 1124 of 1992 (subsequently renumbered as W.P. No. 1124 of 1992). The final judgement and order passed in this writ petition is the subject matter of the present appeal. 12. Appellant (ONGC) contested the writ petition by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. The case made out in the opposition was that as per criteria in vague at the material time for the promotion in question three years annual confidential reports of a candidate were required to be considered, that if the reports were not upto the required standard the candidate was to be declared unfit, that the case of respondent (writ petitioner) was considered by the DPC, that he was left out of promotion due to his low annual confidential report gradings, that he was not left out of promotion due to adverse remarks in his confidential reports, that the adverse remarks for the year 1980-81 were expunged as per direction of court, that adverse remarks for the year 1981-82 were expunged on a sympathetic consideration, that the court while directing expunction of the adverse entries, did not direct the appellant (ONGC) to upgrade the annual confidential report gradings, that as a result the review DPC on consideration again found him unfit for promotion with effect from April 1, 1982, and that subsequently he was found fit for promotion with effect from January 1, 1985. 13. From the abovementioned facts, which have been found from the pleadings on record, it becomes clear that on May 6, 1983 DPC left out respondent (writ petitioner) from promotion with effect from April 1, 1982 because of the adverse remarks which led to low annual confidential report gradings. Before court appellant (ONGC) disclosed its unilateral decision to expunge the adverse remarks. The court case was disposed of on such disclosure. Appellant (ONGC) then expunged the adverse remarks, but left the gradings untouched and unchanged. Review DPC again declared respondent (writ petitioner) unfit for promotion with effect from April 1, 1982 for the reason that although the adverse remarks had been expunged, the report gradings remained as before. According to appellant (ONGC) since Court did not direct to upgrade the gradings, even in the absence of adverse remarks the consequential low gradings recorded in the reports would remain. 14. According to appellant (ONGC) since Court did not direct to upgrade the gradings, even in the absence of adverse remarks the consequential low gradings recorded in the reports would remain. 14. The learned Judge held that the DPC decision dated May 6, 1983 denying promotion to the respondent (writ petitioner) had not been properly reviewed by the review DPC held on May 11, 1987, and accordingly direction was given by him to reconsider the case of promotion of respondent (writ petitioner) with effect from April 1, 1982. 15. The conclusion was drawn by the learned Judge on the basis of facts ascertained by him by perusing the proceedings of the DPCs which had been called for and produced. 16. The learned Judge found from the DPC proceedings that on May 6, 1983 the DPC did not select respondent (writ petitioner) considering his service particulars and confidential reports, that on May 10, 1985 DPC again found him unfit for promotion with effect from January 1, 1985 on annual confidential report gradings as well as personal interview, that on December 26, 1986 a review DPC was held to review the earlier decision dated May 10, 1985 and respondent (writ petitioner) was found fit and recommended for promotion with effect from January 1, 1985, and that on May 11, 1987 another review DPC was held to review the first decision dated May 6, 1983 and respondent (writ petitioner) was again found unfit for promotion with effect from April 1, 1982. 17. After discussing the findings of the DPCs the learned Judge concluded that considering the self same reports one review DPC on December 26, 1986 found respondent (writ petitioner) fit for promotion with effect from January 1, 1985, and another review DPC on May 11, 1987 found him unfit for promotion with effect from April 1, 1982, and there was absolutely no reason to come to such contradictory conclusions. 18. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for appellant (ONGC) has contended that mere absence of adverse remarks does not entitle an employee to a promotion, that Writ Court cannot reassess the findings of DPC as an appellate forum, that Writ Court cannot substitute its view for that of DPC, that after holding the action to be impartial Court could not interfere with it, and that on the facts and findings no direction for reconsideration could be given. He has placed reliance upon the Apex Court decisions given in the cases of: (1) Air Vice Marshal S.L. Chhabra vs. Union of India, reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 441; (2) Nutan Arvind vs. Union of India, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 488 and (3) M. Byranna vs. Director, Central Cattle Breeding Farm, reported in JT 1999 (4) SC 633. 19. By referring to paragraphs 10 and 13 of the decision reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 441 Mr. Ghosh has submitted that even after expunction of adverse remarks from annual confidential reports the gradings therein remain. 20. The learned Advocate appearing for the Union of India has adopted the arguments made on behalf of appellant (ONGC). 21. Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate appearing for respondent (writ petitioner) has supported the judgement and order under appeal on the basis of reasons given therein. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court given in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam vs. S.C. Atri, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 241 , to contend that consequent upon expunction of the adverse remarks his client should have been automatically promoted according to his claim. 22. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case the contentions raised by Mr. Ghosh are irrelevant. The decisions cited by him do not in any way help the appellant (ONGC). Here, we are not concerned with the questions of re-assessing views of DPC or substituting Court's view for that of Selection Board or moderating the appraisal and grading. His reliance of the decision reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 441 for the proposition that gradings remain in confidential reports even after adverse remarks are expunged, is misplaced. We do not find the said decision as an authority for the contended proposition. 23. We also do not agree with Mr. Datta that on the basis of principle discussed in the decision reported in (1999) 1 SCC 241 with the expunction of the adverse remarks respondent (writ petitioner) became automatically entitled to the promotion with effect from April 1, 1982. Expunction rendered the reports incomplete. Incomplete reports were un-assessable. The Promotion Regulations required consideration of annual confidential reports for the selection. So, concept of automatic promotion is contrary to the Promotion Regulations (Annexure-'B' to affidavit-in-reply). 24. Expunction rendered the reports incomplete. Incomplete reports were un-assessable. The Promotion Regulations required consideration of annual confidential reports for the selection. So, concept of automatic promotion is contrary to the Promotion Regulations (Annexure-'B' to affidavit-in-reply). 24. We are of the view that this was not a case where DPC proceedings were required to be examined by the Writ Court in exercise of its power of judicial review of administrative decisions. It was not alleged that members of the DPCs acted mala fide. Admitted fact was that review DPC did not recommend the promotion because of the low gradings remaining in the confidential reports even after expunction of the relevant adverse remarks. So, in our view, the exercise made by the learned Judge was beyond the scope of the case made out by the parties and particularly by the respondent (writ petitioner) himself. Accordingly, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the learned Judge which he has recorded in support of the final conclusion reached and order passed by him. 25. But then, we agree with the final conclusion reached by the learned Judge in that the appellant (ONGC) is under an obligation to reconsider the case of respondent (writ petitioner) for promotion under the stagnation policy with effect from April 1, 1982, and we so agree for the separate reasons given by us hereinafter. 26. From respondent's (writ petitioner's) representation dated July 26, 1991 (Annexure-'E' to writ petition) we find that he had made three requests to the authority, i) to call for fresh annual confidential reports for the concerned years from the concerned office, ii) to record fresh ratings or gradings in the reports, and then iii) to reconsider his case for promotion with effect from April 1, 1982. 27. Appellant (ONGC) did not come out with any answer to respondent's (writ petitioner's) demand made in said representation. So, it can be concluded that after the adverse remarks were expunged, the relevant columns were left blank, thus making the reports incomplete and leaving the gradings baseless. 28. In a confidential report the part where the Reporting Officer records his assessment of the officer one of the entries is for indicating the grading. Such an entry is not wholly unconnected with the other entries of the part. In the absence of any remarks against the other entries, a remark against the entry meant for grading becomes baseless. 29. In a confidential report the part where the Reporting Officer records his assessment of the officer one of the entries is for indicating the grading. Such an entry is not wholly unconnected with the other entries of the part. In the absence of any remarks against the other entries, a remark against the entry meant for grading becomes baseless. 29. As we know, the object of making adverse remarks is to assess the competence of an officer on merits and performance, so as to grade him in various categories as outstanding, very good, good, satisfactory, average, etc. Reference in this connection may be made to the Apex Court decision in the case of M.A. Rajasekhar vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 369 . 30. Therefore, once the adverse remarks made in an annual confidential report of an officer are expunged, the grading recorded on the basis of such adverse remarks cannot remain. 'Low grading' of an officer itself is an adverse remark made in his annual confidential report. Low grading recorded, being the end product of the adverse remarks, the expunction of such remarks, in their entirety or in part, casts an obligation on the employer to review the grading. The obligation is mandatory particularly when the employee has already been deprived of promotion because of such adverse remarks and low grading. Such an obligation is cast by the principles emanating from Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 31. In view of the above factual and legal positions the decision of the review DPC declaring respondent (writ petitioner) unfit for promotion with effect from April 1, 1982 because of the low annual confidential report gradings in the years 1980-81 and 1981-82 cannot be sustained. The decision which is based on acephalous reports, falls in the category of arbitrary decisions. 32. The appellant (ONGC) was required to place before the review DPC the complete reports after making the suitable modifications of the relevant remarks which might lead to necessary modification of the gradings too. The inaction has been sought to be justified and defended by raising a frivolous plea that the court had not given direction to upgrade the gradings, while disposing of the first case between the parties. 33. The inaction has been sought to be justified and defended by raising a frivolous plea that the court had not given direction to upgrade the gradings, while disposing of the first case between the parties. 33. The mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India put an obligation in this case, on the appellant (ONGC), a State within the meaning of Article 12, to review the gradings after completing the reports, as respondent (writ petitioner) had been superseded by his juniors only because of low gradings which resulted from adverse remarks, when the very adverse remarks were subsequently expunged by the appellant (ONGC) on its own. The discharge of such obligation was not dependent on any Court order. 34. The way appellant (ONGC) has sought to justify its inaction must be deprecated. It has no explanation as to why it did not respond to any of the representations made by respondent (writ petitioner). It was brought to authority's notice that the gradings remained untouched and unchanged because of office error. The employer by sheer indifference led the employee to Court of law. 35. Admitted position is that respondent (writ petitioner) was promoted with effect from January 1, 1985 under the stagnation policy. This is evident from the last paragraph of the promotion order dated January 14, 1987 (Annexure-'B' to writ petition). We so hold because only under the stagnation policy dated May 27, 1982 (Annexure-'C' to writ petition) promotions could be given by upgrading the post. 36. We have indicated the above aspect because it has been argued before us on behalf of appellant (ONGC) that the promotion with effect from January 1, 1985 was not one under the stagnation promotion policy and it was in ordinary course based on merit. 37. For the reasons recorded hereinbefore we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge. We reject the contention raised on behalf of appellant (ONGC) that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge erred in giving the direction for reconsideration of the case of respondent (writ petitioner) for promotion with effect from April 1, 1982. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. There will be no costs. 38. We reject the contention raised on behalf of appellant (ONGC) that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge erred in giving the direction for reconsideration of the case of respondent (writ petitioner) for promotion with effect from April 1, 1982. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. There will be no costs. 38. We, however, modify the direction given by the learned Judge, in the following manner : The appellant (ONGC) shall complete the respondent's (writ petitioner's) annual confidential reports for the years 1980-81 and 1981-82 by making suitable modifications of the relevant remarks against relevant columns which became necessary upon expunction of the adverse remarks, and on the basis of modified remarks it shall review the gradings earlier recorded in the reports. It then shall constitute a review DPC which shall reconsider the case of respondent's (writ petitioner's) promotion to the post of Superintendent (P & A) with effect from April 1, 1982 in terms of the policy decision dated May 27, 1982. The review DPC shall reconsider the case without further interviewing the respondent (writ petitioner) and only by taking into consideration the modified annual confidential reports to be placed by appellant (ONGC) after preparing the same in terms of this order. If the modified reports and reviewed gradings are upto the required standard necessary for the promotion, then the respondent's (writ petitioner's) promotion will be dated back to April 1, 1982 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances and seniority. The entire exercise shall be completed by the appellant (ONGC) within a period of two months from the date of communication of this judgement and order. 39. All parties are to act on urgent xerox certified copies of this judgement and order which may be supplied to them on usual undertaking. Tarun Chatterjee, J.: I agree. Appeal dismissed.