Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1546 (ALL)

KHUSHAHAL SINGH v. STATE OF U. P

2004-08-12

G.K.GUPTA, PRADEEP KANT

body2004
PRADEEP KANT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, Khushahal Singh, being aggrieved by his non selection on the post of Chief Engineer, Level-II (Mechanical) in the Irrigation department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, has preferred this writ petition challenging the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion committee (hereinafter referred to as the DPC) held on 6. 3. 02. ( 2 ) THE main ground of attack to the proceedings of the DPC is that annual character roll entries for various years were toned down (downgraded)by the accepting authority without giving reasons, which has resulted in reducing the marks than the marks which otherwise would have been awarded to him as per the procedure adopted by the DPC. A further plea has been taken that certain entries, regarding which representations were pending, could not have been taken into consideration in accordance with U. P. Government servants (Disposal of representations against adverse annual confidential reports and Allied matters) Rules, 1995. The petitioner has brought on record his own assessment made as per relevant Government Orders, for the period of last ten years, and claims that he ought to have been awarded 22. 91 marks by taking into consideration the entries awarded by the reporting officer, whereas the State has also produced the record and has indicated that the petitioner was awarded 19 marks in accordance with the prevalent practice wherein the entry finally awarded by the accepting authority was taken as final in terms of the G. O. dated 5. 3. 93, and thereafter two marks were deducted for two special adverse entries and, therefore, he could not come in the category of selected candidates. ( 3 ) THE entries which have been downgraded are, for the years 1998-99,1999-2000 and 2000-2001. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he should have been awarded 22. 91 marks whereas the State has indicated that total marks, which would have been awarded to him were 19, out of which marks, 2 marks i. e. 1 mark for each special adverse entry, which were 2 in number, were deducted, making the total marks available to the petitioner only 17. 91 marks whereas the State has indicated that total marks, which would have been awarded to him were 19, out of which marks, 2 marks i. e. 1 mark for each special adverse entry, which were 2 in number, were deducted, making the total marks available to the petitioner only 17. The petitioner asserts that the toning down (downgrading) of the entries by the accepting authority, without giving any reasons and without communicating to the petitioner, was bad in law and, therefore, such down graded entries could not have been taken into consideration by the DPC and the entries given by the reporting officer should have been made the basis for his selection. ( 5 ) LIKEWISE he also asserts that deduction of one mark each for the two special adverse entries, was factually wrong and legally incorrect. His submission is that against one special adverse entry dated 6. 11. 98 for the year 1998-99, though his first representation was rejected by the State Government on 17th September, 2001, the said entry could not have been treated as final as the petitioner had preferred second representation because the rejection order did not contain any reasons, therefore, by virtue of Government Order dated 2. 9. 90, he had a right to file a representation again asking for the reasons for rejection of his prayer for expunction of adverse entry. This representation has been made on 19. 9. 01, which was pending on the date of DPC and is still pending, as such, the said special adverse entry could not have been taken into consideration by the DPC. ( 6 ) WITH respect to the second special adverse entry dated 30. 7. 99 for the year 1999-00, the representation dated 31. 8. 99 was disposed of by the rejection order dated 27. 3. 03 and, therefore, the said entry could also not have been taken into consideration on the date of selection i. e. 6. 3. 02. ( 7 ) CONTEST has been put in by the respondents. The State does not dispute that character roll entries, as accepted by the accepting authority were considered by the DPC, and justifies the action by asserting that the entry as given by the accepting authority is the final entry, whereas the entry given by the reporting officer could not be treated as final character roll entry. The State does not dispute that character roll entries, as accepted by the accepting authority were considered by the DPC, and justifies the action by asserting that the entry as given by the accepting authority is the final entry, whereas the entry given by the reporting officer could not be treated as final character roll entry. ( 8 ) BEFORE detailing with the procedure for selection on the post where the criteria is merit, the learned counsel for the State placed reliance upon the government Order dated 28. 3. 84, Government Order dated 5. 3. 93, D. O. letter dated 22. 1. 04 and also D. O. letter dated 23. 1. 04, brought on record alongwith the supplementary affidavit. The D. O. letter dated 22. 1. 04 written by the Joint secretary to the Government to the Additional Chief Standing Counsel clarifies and gives the criteria, which has been adopted in the selection and the manner in which marks are given for particular annual entry. It has been stated in the supplementary affidavit filed by the State that there is no Government order or any Rule which provides for any allocation of particular marks to the character roll entry looking to its grading but the criteria which is in practice and which is being followed uniformly in all State Government departments is by awarding marks 3, 2 and 1 to the excellent, very good, and good entries respectively. ( 9 ) THE Government Order dated 28. 3. 84 lays down the manner in which, while recording annual entry in the character roll of a government servant, the grading is also to be mentioned. The Government Order says that on the annual character roll entry of the government servant, reporting officer would categorise the entry, looking to the overall performance and conduct of the government servant in either of the following categories: excellent, very good, good, fair and poor. ( 10 ) THE reviewing authority, if does not agree with the grading given by the reporting officer, shall give his reasons for disagreement. Likewise, if the accepting authority does not agree with the grading given, he shall record his reasons for such deferment. The Government Order further clarifies that if there is disagreement in the gradings given by the officers at different levels, then grading given by the accepting authority would be taken as final. Likewise, if the accepting authority does not agree with the grading given, he shall record his reasons for such deferment. The Government Order further clarifies that if there is disagreement in the gradings given by the officers at different levels, then grading given by the accepting authority would be taken as final. ( 11 ) THE Government Order dated 5. 3. 93, which has been issued after reconsidering the provisions/instructions given in Government Order dated 28. 3. 84, referred to above, says that there should be equivalence in the entry awarded on the assessment of the performance of the government servant and the grade awarded, i. e. grading should be done which matches the performance and conduct of the government officer. It further says that in case there is contradiction in the grading given by different officers, the grading as given by the accepting authority would be final. ( 12 ) IN the D. O. letter dated 23. 1. 04, which is again written to the additional Chief Standing Counsel, filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit, it has been informed that there is no provision for deduction of marks, for adverse entries, but as per the practice prevailing, one mark each has to be deducted from the marks obtained for each adverse entry. The marks are to be awarded in the manner as indicated by the Joint Secretary in D. O. letter dated 22. 1. 04, which again reiterates that there is no such provision for awarding marks against the entries given but 3, 2 and 1 marks respectively, are awarded to the entries of the categories of excellent, very good and good respectively. ( 13 ) THIS practice is prevailing for the last several years, which according to the aforesaid supplementary affidavit, is accepted uniformly and has also been approved by the Courts in various matters. ( 14 ) THE selection on the post of Chief Engineer, Level-II, was to be made in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Promotion by Selection (on posts outside the purview of Public Service Commission) Eligibility List Rules, 1986 and U. P. Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group A) Rules, 1990. ( 14 ) THE selection on the post of Chief Engineer, Level-II, was to be made in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Promotion by Selection (on posts outside the purview of Public Service Commission) Eligibility List Rules, 1986 and U. P. Service of Engineers (Irrigation Department) (Group A) Rules, 1990. ( 15 ) THE petitioner asserts that he had been wrongly down graded by the accepting authority which has resulted into deprivation of his promotion and that the remarks given by the reporting officer should have been accepted for the purposes of giving marks and not the category and the marks awarded by the accepting authority. ( 16 ) THE procedure as prescribed and detailed by the State and which has been followed in the instant selection, is being applied in all such selections, where the selection is to be made on the criteria of merit. This procedure is being followed for the last many years uniformly and without any exception. The fact that the same procedure has been followed in the instant selection is admitted to the petitioner also and against which procedure, he has not raised any grievance. He, however, says that while awarding the marks, his gradings have wrongly been considered and that two special adverse entries, which ought to have been ignored, have illegally been taken into consideration. The award of character roll entries is directly related to the performance of the work by the government servant and his conduct and off course, his overall ability in discharging his duties as a government servant. The Government Order of the year 1984 and that of 5. 3. 93 take care that while making assessment of performance of work and conduct of the government servant in a particular year, there should be objectivity in such assessment. This is to minimize the chances of favouritism or bias against the government servant by the superior authorities. After the assessment of the work and conduct of the government servant, entry has to be recorded as per the achievement made by the government servant or failure on his part in performing his duties or maintaining himself as a disciplined and able government servant, as the case may be. After awarding the entry the authorities, namely, the reporting officer, the reviewing authority and the accepting authority, have to categorise the entry of the particular year. After awarding the entry the authorities, namely, the reporting officer, the reviewing authority and the accepting authority, have to categorise the entry of the particular year. This categorisation of the entry, which reflects the overall personality of the government servant regarding his work and conduct for the year in question, is known as grading. The grades are given keeping in mind the entry awarded and care has to be taken that grades so given reflect the entry awarded. The grades may be excellent, very good, good, fair and poor. There may be cases where there is no difference of opinion on the grade given by the reporting officer either by the reviewing authority or the accepting authority but instances may be no less in number, where the grade given by the reporting officer or by the reviewing authority is not acceptable to the accepting authority. In case the accepting authority intends to disagree and disagrees with the grade given by the reporting officer or by the reviewing authority, he is supposed to given reasons. In the absence of reasons, it would not be known as to on what basis and for what reasons, the accepting authority has not agreed with the grading of the reporting officer or the reviewing authority. There may be a case where despite low grading being done by the reporting officer or by the reviewing authority, the accepting authority upgrades the category and there may also be cases where the accepting authority downgrades the category as awarded by the reporting officer or the reviewing authority. ( 17 ) A government servant, in all probabilities, would not have any grievance nor would raise any grievance in case the accepting authority upgrades the category but the controversy arises when the category is downgraded. It is a different matter that as per the Government Order dated 28. 3. 84, reasons ought to be recorded under both the circumstances. ( 18 ) THE Government Order dated 5. 3. 93, though has been issued on reconsideration of the Government Order dated 28. 3. 84, and it does not say or reiterates that reasons should be recorded, if there is a disagreement with the category awarded by the reporting officer or reviewing authority but it also does not say that said procedure should not be adopted as given in the government Order dated 28. 3. 3. 84, and it does not say or reiterates that reasons should be recorded, if there is a disagreement with the category awarded by the reporting officer or reviewing authority but it also does not say that said procedure should not be adopted as given in the government Order dated 28. 3. 84, nor it is the case of the respondent State that the Government Order dated 28. 3. 84 stands superceded by the Government order dated 5. 3. 93. It is clear from the aforesaid Government Order of the year 1993 that it reiterates the requirement of categorising the entries given to the government servant in the manner given therein, and further clarifies that the grading given by the accepting authority shall be treated as final, if there is any contradiction in the categorization done by other officers viz. reporting officer or the reviewing officer. ( 19 ) NO exception can be taken if the disagreeing authority, namely, the accepting authority, whose award of category has to be taken as final, is required to give reasons when such authority finds himself in disagreement with the grading made by the reporting officer or the reviewing authority. It may not be lost sight of, that undoubtedly the character roll entries are the best index of the character, performance and conduct of a government servant but some times it is the personal approach of the higher authority towards a particular government servant, which is more reflected in such entry or categorisation of the entry, which in substance is a subjective assessment, which might be guided by other factors. The character roll entries thus make a very significant service record for the entire service career of a government servant, on which his future career is totally dependent. In the matter of selection on higher post, nothing is placed before the selection committee except the character roll entries nor there is any practice of personal interview of the government servant. The selection is to be made on the higher post by assessing the performance, conduct and work of the government servant, in which character roll entries play a very significant role. The selection is to be made on the higher post by assessing the performance, conduct and work of the government servant, in which character roll entries play a very significant role. It is possible that the selection committee may, on considerations, which are germane to the selection, other than the character roll entries, either add to the merit of the candidate or may give a reason for not giving him higher post, but nonetheless the character roll entries play a major role in such selection. The requirement of recording reasons by the reporting officer and thereafter by the reviewing authority and by the accepting authority, in case of difference of opinion, puts somewhat a check upon the vice of favouritism, nepotism and bias of the authorities. ( 20 ) NORMALLY the assessment made by the selection committee is not to be threadbare scrutinized in judicial proceedings as the selection committee being an expert body, its recommendations cannot be lightly interfered with, unless it is pleaded and established beyond doubt that the same suffer from gross illegality or arbitrariness, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Minor discrepancies or the own assessment of the government servant about his candidature, without there being any cogent proof and something more, cannot be a ground for interference by the High Court. ( 21 ) THE learned counsel for the State has fairly accepted, on the basis of record, that the accepting authority had not given any reasons for downgrading the entries but has also submitted that the reporting officer also did not give any reasons for giving excellent/outstanding category. ( 22 ) IT is the specific case of the respondent State, of which there is no denial that in the department of the petitioner down grading or upgrading of the entries has been done with respect to all the officers, and even in the present selection, such downgraded or upgraded entries in question formed the basis of consideration of all the candidates and, therefore, the selection cannot be quashed merely on this ground. ( 23 ) IT is rather admitted to the State that the change of grades of the entries may be downgrading or upgrading of the officers in the department has been done but in doing so, no reasons have been recorded. ( 23 ) IT is rather admitted to the State that the change of grades of the entries may be downgrading or upgrading of the officers in the department has been done but in doing so, no reasons have been recorded. The question for consideration, therefore, is that whether the assessment made by the selection committee would stand vitiated because of the aforesaid change of gradings in the character roll entries. It is not in dispute that the post of Chief Engineer level-II is a selection post and the criteria of selection is merit. The selection, therefore, has to be made strictly on adjudging the merit of the eligible candidates by assessing the service record of the relevant period. The promotion is made from amongst the persons, who could secure their place in the excellent/outstanding category, against the existing vacancies for which selection has been made in accordance with their inter se seniority. ( 24 ) THE entries awarded in the character roll and the gradings made by the departmental authorities cannot be substituted or modified by any appreciation of its own, by the selection committee. The selection committee has to rely upon the service record as is produced before the selection committee. The character roll entries and gradings thereof, as they exist, have to be taken into consideration. The selection committee would not be having any authority or power to change or substitute the entry or the grade awarded and, therefore, if a selection is made on the basis of the service record, including the character roll entries, awarded to a government servant, the selection so held, can neither be said to be arbitrary nor illegal, nor any breach of violation of any rule or obligation which the selection committee has to discharge can be complained of. The selection committee in the instant case also proceeded to consider the merit of the candidates in accordance with the prevalent practice and in accordance with the criteria duly approved by the State Government, on the basis of the service record of the eligible officers. ( 25 ) ALMOST a similar controversy raised in the case of State of U. P. Vs. ( 25 ) ALMOST a similar controversy raised in the case of State of U. P. Vs. Narendra Nath Sinha, (2001) 9 S. C. C. 118, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court, wherein the High Court, allowed the petition filed by narendra Nath Sinha and quashed the selection, after holding that downgrading of entries was incorrectly done with a direction that the petitioner be considered for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, Level-II, ignoring the impugned order dated 2. 5. 2000 and the impugned downgradings of the entries done by the reviewing officer and accepting officer, the supreme Court set aside the judgement passed by the High Court and thus, did not interfere with the selection already held. The Supreme Court also took into consideration the arguments raised by the State that while awarding utkrasht (excellent) grading, recording of reasons is a must by the reporting officer but that was not done and so was the case when the said entry was downgraded. ( 26 ) THE Court also observed that the contentions raised by Shri Dwivedi (counsel for the State) that the reporting officer while giving the gradings "outstanding" or "excellent" had not stated any reason or justification in support of it, cannot be rejected as without substance. The Apex Court upheld the selection, which was quashed by the High Court and issued directions to the Principal Secretary of the department to decide the representation regarding the grievance of the respondent, namely, Narendra Nath Sinha, with respect to downgrading and to pass order afresh. ( 27 ) IN the instant case also, the State has urged that the reporting officer, while giving utkrisht (outstanding) entry to the petitioner, has not recorded any reasons. ( 28 ) APART from this, the selection cannot be questioned merely on the downgrading of the petitioners certain entries, as the such downgraded or upgraded entries were considered with respect to all the eligible candidates including that of the respondent no. 5. The State has asserted that petitioners entries were toned down on four occasions but on one occasion was toned up also by the accepting authority, that too without giving any reason and likewise the entries of respondent no. 5 were toned down on five occasions and on one occasion his one entry was toned up. Thus, the procedure being uniform, it would not vitiate the selection. 5 were toned down on five occasions and on one occasion his one entry was toned up. Thus, the procedure being uniform, it would not vitiate the selection. Even otherwise the comparative assessment made by the selection committee on the basis of service record cannot be interfered with by the Court, nor the Court can sit in appeal over the recommendations made by the selection committee, which is an expert body, unless the recommendations suffer from manifest illegality. ( 29 ) RELIANCE is being placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the case of U. P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain, AIR 1996 Supreme court 1661, wherein their Lordships of Supreme Court, considering the Rules of the Jal Nigam, have observed that all what is required by the Authority recording confidentials in the situation is to record reasons for such down grading on the personal file of the officer concerned, and inform him of the change in the form of an advice. The Apex Court further observed as follows:"if the variation warranted be not permissible, then the very purpose of writing annual confidential reports would be frustrated. Having achieved an optimum level the employee on his part may slacken in his work, relaxing secure by his one-time achievement. This would be an undesirable situation. All the same the sting of adverseness must, in all events, not be reflected in such variations, as otherwise they shall be communicated as such. The Apex court, however, after finding that no reason for change was mentioned in the character roll entries of the respondent, did not interfere with the order passed by the High Court, which upheld the view taken by the Public Services tribunal, wherein down gradation made by the authority was corrected by the tribunal. " ( 30 ) THE learned counsel for the State has made an attempt to distinguish the aforesaid case on the ground that facts of the case and the rule applicable were different as against the present case, but the fact remains that downgrading or toning down of the entries even under the relevant government Orders required the disagreeing authority to record reasons. The selection held by the Departmental Promotion Committee strictly on the criteria of merit, where appraisal of the service record was the main basis for such a selection, cannot be ordinarily quashed by the High Court on the ground that some character roll entries were not correctly or objectively awarded by the departmental authorities or that likewise downgrading or toning down was done, not in accordance with the relevant Government orders or was factually incorrect. The selection committee has to consider the entries, as they are, and it has no role to play in the matter of awarding the entries. The entries awarded by the accepting authority were final for the purpose of selection, as per the G. O. dated 5. 3. 94, which were taken into consideration by the Selection Committee. That being so, the selection made by the Departmental Promotion Committee cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory. ( 31 ) SO far the special adverse entry dated 6. 11. 98 awarded to the petitioner for the year 1998-99 is concerned, we do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the State government did not give any reasons for rejection of his representation in its order dated 17. 9. 01, therefore, he made a second representation, which was pending on the date of selection and, therefore, the said entry was to be ignored under the provisions U. P. Government Servants (Disposal of representations against adverse annual confidential reports and Allied matters)Rules, 1995. The petitioner places reliance upon a Government Order No. 36 (1)/1976 Karmik-2 Lucknow dated 26 September, 1990, in which Para 2 reads as under:"swatah spasht aadesh mein ullikhit karnon ke sandarbh mein sambandhit karmikon dawara dobara diye gaye pratyavedn kinhi bhi paristhistiyon mein grahye na honge. " ( 32 ) THE aforesaid provision says that the reasons given in the self-explanatory orders would not allow any second representation. The argument is being advanced by reading the aforesaid provision inversely i. e. if the order (order of rejection of the representation) does not contain any reasons, then filing of the second representation would not be a bar. The argument is fallacious and does not flow from the aforesaid provision. The argument is being advanced by reading the aforesaid provision inversely i. e. if the order (order of rejection of the representation) does not contain any reasons, then filing of the second representation would not be a bar. The argument is fallacious and does not flow from the aforesaid provision. Once the representation against the adverse entry has been rejected, the remedy lay in challenging the aforesaid order by approaching the appropriate court of law for expunction of remark. The second representation after rejection of the first representation is not provided, rather the aforesaid Government Order prohibits for making such a representation. The representation against the special adverse entry for the year 1998-99 was rejected on 17. 9. 01 whereas the selection committee had met on 6. 3. 02, therefore, the said entry was not to be ignored simply because a second representation was made by the petitioner. In case such repeated representations are allowed to be made by the government servant, there would be no end, as the government servant would keep on making representations, unless he gets an order in his favour. This is not the intention for providing machinery for making a representation against an adverse entry. However, the aforesaid entry dated 6. 11. 98 has been expunged by an order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal on 28. 10. 02 i. e. after the date of selection. The Tribunal, while allowing the claim petition against the said special adverse entry, set aside the same. The writ petition preferred against the said order by the State has also been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19. 2. 03. ( 33 ) THE special adverse entry dated 30. 7. 99 for the year 1999-00, also could not have been ignored merely on the ground that the representation preferred against the said entry was rejected on 27. 3. 03 for the reason that the petitioner himself had challenged the aforesaid special adverse entry by means of amendment being made in the claim petition no. 369/iv/1992 in re: khushahal Singh vs. State of U. P. and others before the State Public Service tribunal, Lucknow. The said prayer for expunction of adverse entry was rejected by the Tribunal after finding that there was no illegality in awarding the said entry vide its order dated 5. 7. 2000. 369/iv/1992 in re: khushahal Singh vs. State of U. P. and others before the State Public Service tribunal, Lucknow. The said prayer for expunction of adverse entry was rejected by the Tribunal after finding that there was no illegality in awarding the said entry vide its order dated 5. 7. 2000. The petitioner though has annexed the copy of the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal (Annexure No. 2) but has not stated in the writ petition anywhere about the fact that his prayer for expunction of aforesaid special adverse entry stands rejected in the said order, rather a plea has been taken that since the representation against the aforesaid entry was pending on the date of selection, which was rejected at a later dated i. e. on 27. 3. 03, therefore, in view of Rules of 1995, the said entry could not have been considered. The petitioner ought to have clearly stated the aforesaid fact, namely, rejection of his claim for expunction of special adverse entry by the Tribunal, though when he approached the Tribunal for the said prayer, the representation dated 31. 8. 99 preferred by him was still pending. The said representation undisputedly has been rejected on 27. 3. 03 i. e. after the meeting of the DPC. ( 34 ) THE petitioner, who himself had made the representation against the aforesaid special adverse entry, very well knew that the same was still pending. Despite the aforesaid knowledge, for the reasons known to him, he, by virtue of an amendment in a pending claim petition of the year 1992, in which he has originally claimed for expunction of certain entries of the year 1993 and quashing of the charge sheet of the year 1992 with certain other reliefs, challenged the aforesaid special entry also. It was the own act of the petitioner that allowed the Tribunal to look into the validity and propriety of the aforesaid special adverse entry. Once a chance was taken by the petitioner to get the aforesaid entry expunged under the orders of the Tribunal, and he having failed before the Tribunal, there remained nothing for the State government to take a different view thereafter. The Tribunal in its order has categorically stated that entry dated 30. 7. 99 does not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity, which may call for interference. The Tribunal in its order has categorically stated that entry dated 30. 7. 99 does not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity, which may call for interference. The relevant finding recorded by the Tribunal reads as under:"in light of the above, there does not appear to be any force in the grounds taken up in the claim petition and the amended claim petition including subsequent amendment which may call for interference and grant some relief to the petitioner. Since the enquiry was already pending and no bad intention can be presumed on the part of the Opposite Parties, the special adverse entry dated 30th July, 1999 does not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity which may call for interference. " ( 35 ) IT is not open for the petitioner now to say that since his representation was pending before the State Government, therefore, said entry could not have been taken into consideration by the State Government in view of the Rules of 1995 and in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. ( 36 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to the case of Brij Pal Vs. State of U. P. and others, [2003 (21) LCD 282] (Division bench ). This case has been cited for the purpose of issuing the direction for holding a review DPC. The Court does have power to direct for holding a review DPC, but facts of the aforesaid case are entirely different in which context the aforesaid order was passed. In the said case, the petitioner was not considered for selection, though being eligible, simply because character roll entries for some period were not complete. ( 37 ) THE ratio of the case of Dental Council of India v. Subharti K. B. Charitable Trust and another, (2001) 5 S. C. C. 486, is not at all in the present case. ( 38 ) THE petitioner also relies upon the case of Dr. Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (2001) 5 S. C. C. 482 in support of his submission that candidature of the petitioner has not rightly been considered and that adverse entry dated 6. 11. ( 38 ) THE petitioner also relies upon the case of Dr. Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (2001) 5 S. C. C. 482 in support of his submission that candidature of the petitioner has not rightly been considered and that adverse entry dated 6. 11. 98 also having been set aside by the Tribunal though on later date, would allow the petitioner to be considered by issuing a direction for considering the candidature of all the eligible officers by the DPC for the post in question. In the case of Dr. Rajinder Singh (supra) challenge was made to the promotion on the ground that on the date of recommendation by DPC, the selected candidate was not having the statutory qualifications. However, in the meantime all the eligibility conditions were attained by him, therefore, setting aside recommendation of DPC and declaring the post in question to have fallen vacant forthwith, the Supreme Court directed a fresh DPC to be appointed to consider the cases of eligible officers including the appellant and the respondent before the Supreme Court. ( 39 ) FROM the facts as have emerged from the record, it is clear that no fault can be attributed to the deliberations of the selection committee, in considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Chief engineer, Level-II, on the basis of the service record viz. the existing entries and the awarded categories nor the same can be said to be faulty because of consideration of two special adverse entries dated 6. 11. 98 and 30. 7. 99. No malice or ill motive can be attributed nor it can be said that the aforesaid special adverse entry could not have been considered by the selection committee in view of any rule or any provision under the Rules of 1995 or that they ought to have been excluded from consideration. Non selection of the petitioner by the selection committee on the assessment of his service record, as disclosed aforesaid, does not call for any interference by this Court. ( 40 ) IT is true that the downgrading or toning down the entries may sometimes cause serious consequences against the government servant in the matter of his promotion or extension of his services and, therefore, the same has been required to be done by following a rule, namely, by recording reasons. ( 40 ) IT is true that the downgrading or toning down the entries may sometimes cause serious consequences against the government servant in the matter of his promotion or extension of his services and, therefore, the same has been required to be done by following a rule, namely, by recording reasons. ( 41 ) UNDER the circumstances, it would be appropriate that the petitioner may make a fresh representation to the Principal Secretary of the department raising his grievance against the downgrading/toning down of the entries of particular years as now it is obvious that the petitioner knows all his entries of each particular year, including the entries which have been toned down. The principal Secretary on receipt of such representation shall afford opportunity to him and shall pass necessary orders thereon. This shall be done within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation alongwith certified copy of this order. ( 42 ) IT is clarified that the Principal Secretary, while considering the representation, would objectively see about the justification of the toning down of the entry and would not effect a change therein merely because the reasons have not been recorded either by the reporting officer or by the accepting authority, but he would assess the entry on the basis of the performance and conduct of the petitioner during relevant year with absolute objectivity. ( 43 ) BEFORE parting we are constraint to observe that the proceedings of the selection committee are strictly confidential but the officers, get the whole information regarding the deliberations of the DPC and they also get hold of the documents like eligibility list, the marks awarded by the selection committee, deliberations made during the selection etc. , though all such matters are confidential and are not supposed to be leaked. If the State or its officers would allow such pilferage of confidential documents and information, the sanctity of proceedings of the selection committee would be eroded. We are not indicting the petitioner in this case nor we intend to say that any action be initiated against him but it is not known that when only adverse entries are communicated to the government servant, then how true depiction of other entries, which are good, outstanding or excellent, becomes available to the government servants. We are not indicting the petitioner in this case nor we intend to say that any action be initiated against him but it is not known that when only adverse entries are communicated to the government servant, then how true depiction of other entries, which are good, outstanding or excellent, becomes available to the government servants. The State Government should see that the confidential information is not leaked to any government servant and for which appropriate directions be issued. ( 44 ) WE would, however, further like to observe that the prevailing practice of keeping the good entries in the character roll or the entries, which are not adverse and are not to be communicated to the government servant as confidential, needs reconsideration. A government servant, if is awarded an adverse entry or his integrity is withheld or for that matter any other adverse comment pointing out some shortcomings in his performance and conduct is placed in his confidential roll then such an entry is necessarily to be communicated to him but where the entries are good, very good or excellent/outstanding and there is appreciation of the achievement made by the government servant, such entries are made strictly confidential and are not supposed to be known to the government servant nor he is having any claim to ask for such entries. The character roll entries of whatever nature are confidential record and the requirement of communicating adverse entries only, is with an object, namely, to given an opportunity to the erring government servant to improve himself and also to afford him an opportunity to get the adverse entry expunged by making a representation, which may establish that the adverse entry was not based on true performance and conduct of the government servant and was based on certain facts, which needed correction. ( 45 ) IN the case of State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher, (1996) 8 SCC 762 , the Supreme Court observed that ". . . . . The object of writing the confidential report is two fold i. e. , to give an opportunity to the officers to remove deficiencies and to inculcate discipline. Secondly, it seeks to serve improvement of quality and excellence and efficiency of public service. This court in Delhi Transport Corpn. Case pointed out that the pitfalls and insidious effects on service due to lack of objectives by the controlling officer. Secondly, it seeks to serve improvement of quality and excellence and efficiency of public service. This court in Delhi Transport Corpn. Case pointed out that the pitfalls and insidious effects on service due to lack of objectives by the controlling officer. Confidential and character reports should, therefore, be written by superior officers higher above the cadres. The officer should show objectivity, impartiality and fair assessment without any prejudices whatsoever with the highest sense of responsibility alone to inculcate devotion to duty, honesty and integrity to improve excellence of the individual officer. Lest the officers get demoralised which would be deleterious to the efficacy and efficiency of public service. " in the case of State of U. P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra, (1997) 4 s. C. C. 7, the Apex Court held as follows:"it would, thus, be clear that the object of writing the confidential reports and making entries in the character rolls is to give an opportunity to a public servant to improve excellence. Article 51-A (j)enjoins upon every citizen the primary duty to constantly endeavour to prove excellence, individually and collectively, as a member of the group. Given an opportunity, the individual employee strives to improve excellence and thereby efficiency of administration would be augmented. The officer entrusted with the duty to write the confidential reports, has a public responsibility and trust to write the confidential reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately while giving, as accurately as possible, the statement of facts on an overall assessment of the performance of the subordinate officer. It should be founded upon facts or circumstances. " ( 46 ) THUS it cannot be disputed that the two fold object of writing the confidential report i. e. , to give an opportunity to the officers to remove deficiencies and to inculcate discipline and that it seeks to serve improvement of quality and excellence and efficiency of public service, would only be achieved if the adverse entries are communicated and that is why as per rule, such entries are to be communicated to the government servant. ( 47 ) A government servant whenever is communicated a character roll entry, it is known to all that such an entry would only be adverse as there is no provision for informing the commendable achievement of a government servant. ( 47 ) A government servant whenever is communicated a character roll entry, it is known to all that such an entry would only be adverse as there is no provision for informing the commendable achievement of a government servant. It is apparently a contradiction in terms, that, though the adverse and good entries, both form part of the same confidential service record of the government servant, but the secrecy cover, stands automatically removed, the moment the entry is found to be adverse but it remains under the cover of confidentiality, if it is not adverse. ( 48 ) THE object of awarding character roll entries, which may be outstanding, very good, good, fair or poor i. e. good or adverse is to maintain the record of the conduct and performance of the government servant and to consider such service record at the time of promotion or extension in service or may be at the time of considering the compulsory retirement, as the case may be. If the adverse entries have to be communicated for giving an opportunity to the defaulting government servant to improve himself, and to inculcate discipline i. e. to give him an opportunity to correct and improve for competing in future with his fellow colleagues in the matter of promotion, then the question arises that for healthy competition and for creating a work oriented environment, whether the government servant should be allowed to know his good entries also, which reflect his achievements in service. Transparency and objectivity in the award of character roll entries, which constitute major part of the service record, is an essential ingredient for upholding the morale and prompting the government servant to keep on improving excellence in his performance. ( 49 ) A government servant who is awarded good, very good or excellent entries, if comes to know about the said entries and about his high reputation in the department, he would certainly make all endeavour to maintain this position to the best of his ability. ( 50 ) WE do not find any valid reason as to why the entries, which are not adverse and which speak high about the performance of the government servant and the laudable work done by him, should not be made known to him and why such right may be denied to a government servant. ( 50 ) WE do not find any valid reason as to why the entries, which are not adverse and which speak high about the performance of the government servant and the laudable work done by him, should not be made known to him and why such right may be denied to a government servant. The embargo that good entries would not be allowed to be seen by the government servant and would remain confidential in the service record, whereas other records may be seen, compels the government servant to adopt illegal means for finding out their character roll entries. By adopting unauthorized means, all the character roll entries are known to the government servant and when challenge is to be made by them, in regard to any selection to a higher post, they bring the entire character roll entries on record. The revelation of commendable entries would not only give a sense of satisfaction to the government servant about his performance but may also act like a catalyst in propelling him to maintain high standards of service so that his service record may improve day by day. If disclosure of adverse entries makes the government servant to improve himself, the knowledge of recognition of his commendable work and his performance by the superior authorities, would also boost the confidence of the government servant which would also be an incentive for giving still better performance. . ( 51 ) IT is for the State Government to consider the aforesaid questions and the State would be well advised that if there is no statutory rule prohibiting the disclosure of character roll entries other than the adverse entries and only for the sake that they are named as confidential entries, they are not to be disclosed, it may provide a procedure by making a rule, if necessary, or by issuing a government order for allowing the government servant to have information regarding his/her character roll entries on making a request in the manner prescribed, in case he or she so desires. The writ petition is dismissed, subject to the directions given in the judgement. .