JUDGMENT S. H. Kapadia, C. J. : Rule. 2. Respondents waived service. 3. Petitioner is allowed to join P.K. Sharma, Chief Engineer as party respondent. 4. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) of 23rd December 1970. In 1975,U.P. Jal Nigam was constituted under U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act. 1975. On 19th December 1983, services of the petitioner was confirmed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) with effect from 1st April 1976. He was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 27th October 1977. He was granted selection grade by order dated March 20, 19930 w.e.f. 23rd June 1992. By order dated 7th April 2000, he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. On 3rd June 2002, he was appointed. as Chief Engineer (Officiating). 5. In August 2002. there was a selection for the post of Chief Engineer (Level-II). Pramod Kumar Sharma was promoted as Chief Engineer by order dated 31st August 2002. Pramod Kumar Sharma was junior to the petitioner. Petitioner has come to know that the entries of the petitioner for the year 1992-93,93-94, 94-95 and 9596 were down-graded by the Accepting Authority from excellent/outstanding/best to satisfactory. It is the case of the petitioner that his entries have been down-graded in I order to help Pramod Kumar Sharma. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Managing Director of the Jal Nigam/Accepting Officer was the uncle of Pramod Kumar Sharma and, A herefore, he has been down-graded in order to give advantage to Pramod Kumar Sharma. 6. It is the case of the petitioner, that down-grading of entries was never communicated to the petitioner by Jal Nigam. Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. Prabhat Chandra' Jain, reported in 1996-2 S.C.C., page 363. Petitioner has also relied upon Office Memo dated 6th November 1996 in support of his contention that, whenever the Reviewing Officer/Accepting Officer changes the remarks. the officer changing the remarks, shall give reasons for changing the remarks in question and the concerned officer shall be told about that remark. This Office Memo has been issued by the Chairman of the Jal Nigam. It is annexure-11 to the petition: It is the case of the petitioner that the directions given in the Memo have not been followed. This Office Memo has been issued by the Chairman of the Jal Nigam. It is annexure-11 to the petition: It is the case of the petitioner that the directions given in the Memo have not been followed. It is the case of the petitioner that he was never apprised of the remarks made by the Accepting Officer. 7. Mr. Naithani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. invited our attention to the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Jat Nigam Vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain 1996-2 Supreme Court Cases 363. He pointed out that the judgment of the Supreme Court has been implemented by the Jal Nigam by issuing Office Memo dated 6th November 1996. He contended that the Office Memo dated 6th November 1996 has not been followed by the Accepting Officer. He contended that the Reporting Officer has given the remark for the year 1992-93; and the Reviewing Authority has given the remark whereas the Accepting Authority (M.D.) has down-graded the petitioner by putting in the remark. Mr. Naithani further pointed out that for the first half of the year 1993. the Reviewing Officer has put the remark and no entry has been made by the Accepting Officer, whereas for the period 1st July 1993 to 31st March 1994 the remark made by the Reporting Authority is the remarks, made by the Reviewing Officer is and the remark made by the Accepting Officer (M.D.) is. Mr. Naithani. further pointed out that for the year 1994-95. the remark put by the Reporting Officer is whereas the remark put by the Reviewing Officer is whereas the remark put by the M.D. is (satisfactory). Similarly. for the year 1995-96 , the Reporting Officer has put the remark the Reviewing Officer has put the remark and the Accepting Officer (M.D.) has put the remark i.e. satisfactory. Mr. Naithani submitted that, therefore, when the matter came to Accepting Officer (M.D.), the entry has been down-graded consistently in the above years. He has relied upon the entries on page-5 of the writ petition (para14). He submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court has not been followed. He submits that the downgrading has not been communicated to the petitioner. He submits that the directions given by the Chairman on 6th November 1996 have not been complied with. He has relied upon the entries on page-5 of the writ petition (para14). He submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court has not been followed. He submits that the downgrading has not been communicated to the petitioner. He submits that the directions given by the Chairman on 6th November 1996 have not been complied with. He further submits that this writ petition should be allowed and the Court should strike down the down-graded entries and restore the entries of the petitioner as mentioned by the Reporting Authority. 8. Mr. Dhulia. learned counsel appearing for Jal-Nigam, on the other hand. contended that in this matter there is no down-grading of entries. He argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court has no application to this case. He argued that the entries have been made in accordance with law. He argued that the meaning of downgrading was to look at the entries at each year and one has to compare those entries with the previous year. He further contended that in this case, there is no down-grading: He argued that till the entries are certified by the Accepting Authority (M.D.), there is no down-grading. He, therefore, argued that the above judgment of the Supreme Court will not apply. 9. Mr. Tripathi, learned Advocate for PK. Sharma, contended that false allegation has been made against the Managing Director. He contended that down-grading is there only during the period 23 July 1992 to 31st March 1993. He contended that there is no down-grading thereafter. 10. In order to satisfy our conscience. we called for the records. On examining the records, we find that for the period 23rd July 1992 to 31st March 1993. the Reporting Authority has put the remark whereas the Reviewing Authority has also put the remark. However, the Accepting Authority (M.D.) has put the remark satisfactory. This remark was put on 29th July 1995 by M.D. whereas the I Reviewing Authority has put the remark on 12th August 1994. Similarly, for the period 01.04.1993 upto 30.06.1993 the Reviewing Authority has put the remark excellent but the Accepting Authority has not certified the remark put by the Reviewing Authority. For the period 1st July 1993 upto 31st March 1994, the remark put by the Reporting Authority is whereas the Reviewing Authority has put the remark and the Accepting Authority (M.D.) has put the remark. The remark. For the period 1st July 1993 upto 31st March 1994, the remark put by the Reporting Authority is whereas the Reviewing Authority has put the remark and the Accepting Authority (M.D.) has put the remark. The remark. is put on 30th July 1995. At this stage. it is important to note that the Accepting Authority (M.D.) has certified two out of three entries above mentioned on 29/30 July 1995. No reason has been given as to why these entries were not put to the petitioner. No reason has been given as to why two out of three entries were made on 29/30 July 1995 by the Accepting Authority (M.D.). No reason has been given as to why the Accepting Authority (M.D.) has not certified the remark given by the Reviewing Authority for the period 01.04.1993 to 30.06.1993. The above entries have been made without giving any reasons. The petitioner has not been apprised of the remarks made in his G.R. The directions of the Chairman dated 6th November 1996 have not been followed. In the circumstances, we were inclined to admit the petition and pass interim order. However, we were informed that the post of M.D. is vacant. We were informed that Jal-Nigam is required to fill in that post. The petitioner is falling within the zone of consideration for the post of Managing Director. He is also required to be considered for the post of Chief Engineer in substantive capacity. 11. In the circumstances, we are directing the Jal-Nigam not to consider the entries for the years 1992-93. 9394. 94-95 and 95-96 made in the record of the petitioner at the time of considering the case of the petitioner for the post of Chief Engineer/M.D. There is one more reason, why we are giving this direction. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court, reasons were required to be given by the Authority down-grading the entries. In terms of the Memo given by the Chairman dated 6th November 1996. the Authority down-grading the entries was required to give reasons and to apprise the petitioner. We are giving herein below the entire chart of the entries made in the confidential record of the petitioner. 12. Annual Confidential Report (Chart) of the petitioner : Year Reporting Reviewing Accepting Authority Authority Authority. l. 23.7.92 Excellent Excellent Satisfactory to 31.3.93 Date not given 12.08.94 29.07.95 2. We are giving herein below the entire chart of the entries made in the confidential record of the petitioner. 12. Annual Confidential Report (Chart) of the petitioner : Year Reporting Reviewing Accepting Authority Authority Authority. l. 23.7.92 Excellent Excellent Satisfactory to 31.3.93 Date not given 12.08.94 29.07.95 2. 1.4.93 Very Good Excellent Entry not given to 30.6.93 Date not given Date not given 3. 1. 7.93 Good Satisfactory Satisfactory to 31.03.94 22.04.95 14.06.95 30.07.95 4. 1.4.94 Good Satisfactory Satisfactory to 31.3.95 27.6.95 2.7.95 23.12.95 5. 1.4.95 Very Good Satisfactory Satisfactory to 31.10.95 12.1.96 24.1.96 Date not given 6. 1.11.95 Good Entry not given to 31.3.96 No sign. 7. 1.4.96 Satisfactory Satisfactory Very Good to 31.3.97 28.8.98 28.8.98 Date not given. 13. This chart indicates that the entries were made by the Accepting Authority after the due date, which is 30th June of each year. The chart indicates, entries being made on 29th July 1995 and 30th July 1995 by the Accepting Authority (M.D.). The chart indicates that in certain periods entries have not been given by the M.D. In other words. for those periods the M.D. has not certified the remarks put by the Reviewing Authority in favour of the petitioner as - For the above reasons we have given the direction to the effect that the entries for the years 1992-93. 93-94. 94-95 and 95-96 shall not be given effect to in the matter of petitioner's future promotion/selection in the post of Chief Engineer/M.D. The Accepting Authority has since retired. Today there is no Accepting Authority, therefore. instead of admitting the petition and giving interim relief, we have adopted the above course of action. 14. Before concluding, we may mention that Mr. Paresh Tripathi. Advocate has vehemently urged that except for the year 1992-93, all other entries are in order. He pointed out that there is no down-grading of entries for the years 1993-94. 94-95 and 95-96. He pointed out that the false allegations have been made against the M.D. who has since retired. At the outset, we may mention that we have not gone into allegations of mala-fides. However, we find that there is downgrading of entries. We find that the Accepting Authority has made entries. almost on the same day. We find that the entries are not made as per the time schedule given in the Govt. orders. At the outset, we may mention that we have not gone into allegations of mala-fides. However, we find that there is downgrading of entries. We find that the Accepting Authority has made entries. almost on the same day. We find that the entries are not made as per the time schedule given in the Govt. orders. Lastly,- we find that the in certain cases, either Reviewing Authority/ Accepting Authority have not given entries 8.g. for the period 1St November 1995 to 31st March 1996. there is no certification of the entries given by the Reporting Authority/Reviewing Authority. 15. For the aforestated reasons, ends of justice would be made if the entries for the years 1992-93. 93-94. 94-95 and 95-96 are ignored and not taken into account at the time of promotion/selection to the post of Chief Engineer/M.D. 16. Subject to above. writ petition is disposed of.