Judgment : Leave granted. The appellant herein was appointed as Deputy Director of Training on or about 13.11.1992. He attended a training programme on Computer Applied Technology. He was sent on deputation on various occasions in 1997, 1998 and yet again in 2000. Indisputably, remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports throughout had been "Outstanding" or "Very good". He, however, in two years i.e. 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 obtained only "Good" remark in his Annual Confidential Report. The effect of such a downgrading falls for our consideration. The Union of India issued a Office Memorandum on 8.2.2002 wherein the Bench mark for promotion was directed to be "Very Good" in terms of clause 3.2 thereof. It is also not in dispute that Guidelines for the Departmental Promotion Committees had been issued by the Union of India wherein, inter alia, it was directed as follows: ".....6.2.1(b) The DPC should assess the suitability of the employees for promotion on the basis of their Service Records and with particular reference to the CRs for five preceding years irrespective of the qualifying service prescribed in the Service/Recruitment Rules. The 'preceding five years' for the aforesaid purpose shall be decided as per the guidelines contained in the DoP & T O.M No.22011/9/98-Estt.(D), dated 8.9.1998, which prescribe the Model Calendar for DPC read with OM of even number, dated 16.6.2000.(If more than one CR have been written for a particular year, all the CRs for the relevant years shall be considered together as the CR for one year}." The question as to whether such a down gradation of Annual Confidential Report would amount to adverse remark and thus it would be required to be communicated or not fell for consideration before this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors. Vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Ors. - (1996) 2 SCC 363 in the following terms: " We need to explain these observations of the High Court. The Nigam has rules, whereunder an adverse entry is required to be communicated to the employee concerned, but not downgrading of an entry. It has been urged on behalf of the Nigam that when the nature of the entry does not reflect any adverseness that is not required to be communicated. The Nigam has rules, whereunder an adverse entry is required to be communicated to the employee concerned, but not downgrading of an entry. It has been urged on behalf of the Nigam that when the nature of the entry does not reflect any adverseness that is not required to be communicated. As we view it the extreme illustration given by the High Court may reflect an adverse element compulsorily communicable, but if the graded entry is of going a step down like falling from 'very good' to 'good' that may not ordinarily be an adverse entry since both have a positive grading. All that is required by the authority recording confidentials in the situation is to record reasons for such downgrading on the personal file of the officer concerned and inform him of the change in the form of an advice. 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. It may be emphasised that even a positive confidential entry in a given case can perilously be adverse and to say that an adverse entry should always be qualitatively damaging may not be true. In the instant case we have seen the service record of the first respondent. No reason for the change is mentioned. The downgrading is reflected by comparison. This cannot sustain. Having explained in this manner the case of the first respondent and the system that should prevail in the Jal Nigam we do not find any difficulty in accepting the ultimate result arrived at by the High Court." Several High Courts as also the Central Administrative Tribunal in their various judgments followed the decision of this Court in U.P. Jal Nigam(supra), inter alia, to hold that in the event the said adverse remarks are not communicated causing deprivation to the employee to make an effective representation there against, thus should be ignored. Reference may be made to 2003(1) ATJ 130, Smt. T.K. Aryaveer Vs. Union of India & Ors, 2005(2) ATJ, Page 12, 2005(1) ATJ 509-A.B. Gupta Vs. Union of India & Ors. Reference may be made to 2003(1) ATJ 130, Smt. T.K. Aryaveer Vs. Union of India & Ors, 2005(2) ATJ, Page 12, 2005(1) ATJ 509-A.B. Gupta Vs. Union of India & Ors. and 2003(2) SCT 514- Bahadur Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. Our attention, however, has been drawn by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents to a recent decision of this Court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Major Bahadur Singh - (2006) 1 SCC 368 where a Division Bench of this Court sought to distinguish the U.P. Jal Nigam(supra) stating as follows: "8. As has been rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants U.P. Jal Nigam case has no universal application. The judgment itself shows that it was intended to be meant only for the employees of U.P. Jal Nigam only." With utmost respect, we are of the opinion that the judgment of U.P. Jal Nigam(supra) cannot held to be applicable only to its own employees. It has laid down a preposition of law. Its applicability may depend upon the rules entirely in the field but by it cannot be said that no law has been laid down therein. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench. Let the records of the matter be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for passing appropriate orders.