Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-Challenge in the present petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur Dated 012.2004 (Annexure-1). 2. Mr. P.C. Sharma, applicant before the Tribunal, who has been arrayed as a respondent in the present petition, was working as Assistant Accounts Officer. He was denied promotion to the post of Accounts Officer, whereas the person junior to him i.e., Respondent No.5 was promoted to the said post. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents he made representation dated 17.06.2003 to the Controller General of Defence Accounts, the second respondent arrayed in the original lis which was dismissed. He filed Original Application No.592/2003, which has since been allowed. The respondents have been directed to give promotion to Shri P.C. Sharma, from the date when his junior was given promotion with all consequential benefits except that the applicant shall not be entitled for back-wages and that he will be granted promotion notionally form the date when such promotion was given to Shri Y.K. Sharma. He was also held entitled for the actual wages of the Accounts Officer w.e.f. 01.01.2005 or from the date of joining the post of Accounts Officer whichever was earlier. 3. Confidential reports of Shri P.C. Sharma, for the last 5 years, which were under consideration by the DPC were as follows :Grading Year Good 1997-98 Very Good 1998-99 Good 1999-2000 Good 2000-2001 Average 2001-2002. 4. The Tribunal held that average entry could not be termed as adverse so as to exclude a person for promotion, even though such an entry may not be recorded as complimentary and performance of a person may be of a routine nature. It was also held that the requirement of instruction that was to be considered by the DPC was to assess the suitability of an employee for promotion on the basis of his service record and with particular reference to CRs of 5 preceding years. Para 6.2.1 of the instructions dealing with the suitability of an employee for promotion on the basis of the service record did contain reference to CRs of 5 preceding years and on that basis Shri P.C. Sharma was held entitled for promotion. 5. Para 6.2.1 of the instructions dealing with the suitability of an employee for promotion on the basis of the service record did contain reference to CRs of 5 preceding years and on that basis Shri P.C. Sharma was held entitled for promotion. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the averments made in Ground C of para 7, however contends that since 1996 the criteria that was being observed by the DPC in accordance with the guidelines contained in para 6.12, 6.14 and 7 for assessing the suitability of an eligible Assistant Accounts Officer also required that last ACR should be above average. 6. We would have examined the contention of the learned counsel in all its details but it is conceded during the course of arguments that not only this point was not urged before the Tribunal at the time of arguments but the same was not even taken in the written statement filed before it. It would be inequitous at this stage to permit a totally new ground to oppose the cause of Shri P.C. Sharma. If permissible, however, the petitioner may move an application for review of the impugned order. 7. With the observations made above this writ petition is dismissed.