Judgment By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to include his name in the panel of Assistant Grade-II (Depot). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits filed. 3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade III (for brevity herein after referred as AG. III) by promotion on 26-12-1979 in Food Corporation of India. At present he is posted at Haldwani. In the year 1994, after completion of his 12 years of unblemished service, the petitioner was given selection grade, applicable to A.G. III. According to the petitioner, in the seniority list (Depot), he was at serial No. 848 in the North Zone. Ignoring the petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of A.G. II, the respondents ha n;; promoted juniors to him, as below as the person at seniority No. 2446 too has been promoted to the post of A.G. II. The services of the petitioner and his other colleagues are governed by Food Corporation of India Staff Regulation Act, 1971. Rule 10 of said Regulation, provides that the promotions would be made on the basis of seniority cum fitness. The petitioner's case is that he was never awarded any adverse entry by his superior officers and his work is appreciated by the authorities concerned. Feeling aggrieved by being deprived of his promotion to the post of AG. II, this writ petition has been filed, alleging that even after making representation, the petitioner's claim is being ignored by the respondents. 4. Respondents contested the writ petition and filed their counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Messenger in the year 1971 and was later promoted to AG.III (Depot) in the year 1979. It is admitted that on completion of ten years service, the petitioner was given selection grade w.e.f. 01-12-1994. In fact his selection grade was due w.e.f. 01-12-1992 but due to the vigilance matters and misconduct on the part of the petitioner, his selection grade was deferred and was sanctioned only w.e.f. 01-12-1994. Denying that the petitioner's service record is unblemished one, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was awarded penalty of stoppage of one annual increment. Denying that the petitioner's service record is unblemished one, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was awarded penalty of stoppage of one annual increment. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner in his duty, explanation was sought from him and warning was given to him. In para-9 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that before granting promotion, all round performance of the candidates has to be adjudged for which annual performance appraisal report is also seen, which includes the annual confidential report, apart from performance, efficiency and behaviour. A Zonal Promotion Committee, assessed the service record of the petitioner and considered his case for promotion to the post of A.G. II but considering his conduct and service record, he was found unfit for the promotion. It is alleged by the respondents that several times warnings were issued to the petitioners. 5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has denied the allegations contained in the counter affidavit and reiterated the contents of the writ petition. Alleging that the adverse entries recorded in the service record of the petitioner in the year 1997-1998, were not communicated to him before the Zonal Promotion Committee (herein after referred as Z.P.C.) considered the case of the petitioner for promotion. It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the alleged acts of misconduct of the petitioner were minor in nature and should not have been weighted to refuse him promotion. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to Ann'exure-4 to the rejoinder affidavit, filed by the petitioner, which is copy of memorandum dated 20-05-2002 in which the respondents have communicated the petitioner that his case was considered by Z.P.C. in its meeting held on 16th, 17th and 18th of October, 2000 but considering his adverse annual confidential remarks for the years 1997 and 1998, he was found unfit and was not empanelled to the post of A.G.II (Depot). Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the only ground mentioned in the aforesaid document is the adverse remarks recorded in the years 1997 and 1998 against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the only ground mentioned in the aforesaid document is the adverse remarks recorded in the years 1997 and 1998 against the petitioner. In this connection, he further drew attention of this Court to Annexure-5 and Annexure-6 to the rejoinder affidavit, which are copies of the letter dated 29-07-2001 and 23-08-2001, whereby entries of the years 1997 and 1998 respectively were communicated to the petitioner. Shri J.C. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the communication has been made after the date when the ZPC met and considered the petitioner's case for promotion, as such, the petitioner had no opportunity to make representation prior to consideration of his case for promotion. Relying on the principles of law laid down in Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Punjab (1979) 2 Supreme Court Cases Pg. 368, State of Haryana Vs. P.C. Wadhwa (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 602 and Brijmohan Singh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 188, it is contended that the adverse entries, which were not communicated to the petitioner cannot be taken into account while considering his case for promotion. After going through the aforesaid case laws, this Court is in agreement to the learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that an employee cannot be deprived of his promotion merely on the basis of the adverse entries if the same is not communicated to the concerned employee. 7. But perusal of the entire record, shows that apart from petitioner's adverse entries of the year 1997 and 1998, which are being reproduced below, there are other misconducts on the part of the petitioner, which could not have been ignored while considering his promotion. The adverse entry of the year 1997 of the petitioner reads as under :- "A failure in house keeping section with no contribution in Audit section. Very destructive and argumentative by nature. " The adverse entry in the year 1998, reads as under :- "Very careless. Miserably failed in house keeping section and created labour/staff union problems. In audit section, failed even to maintain file, prepare simple data of pending para and replies etc. Created a bad scene before SRM on his visit to Haldwani and got his intended transfer to depot. " The adverse entry in the year 1998, reads as under :- "Very careless. Miserably failed in house keeping section and created labour/staff union problems. In audit section, failed even to maintain file, prepare simple data of pending para and replies etc. Created a bad scene before SRM on his visit to Haldwani and got his intended transfer to depot. " Certainly in view of principle of law down by the Apex Court, referred above, since these entries were not communicated to the petitioner by the time ZPC met to consider the promotion of the petitioner, as such, merely for the aforesaid two entries, the petitioner could not have been deprived of his promotion. But counter affidavit discloses that there were several warnings issued to the petitioner relating to his misconduct. It is also stated in para-9 of the counter affidavit that apart from candidate's Annual Confidential Report, his performance. efficiency and behaviour are also considered before granting the promotion. As far as warnings are concerned. from para-9 of the rejoinder affidavit. filed on behalf of the petitioner. it is clear that from time to time he did receive warning and submitted his replies dated 22-06-1997. 22-10-1997 and 17-08-1998. which are Annexure RA.1. RA 2 and RA 3 to the rejoinder affidavit. From these documents. it is clear that the petitioner knew about his conduct. which is being noticed by the respondents and was brought on the record by issuing him warnings. Though the petitioner in aforesaid para-9 of the rejoinder affidavit. states that his mistakes were minor and insignificant one. but the fact remains that his averment in the writ petition that he has clean service record is evidently wrong and against the record. As such, though the aforesaid quoted adverse entries were not communicated to the petitioners before his case was considered for promotion but rest of the warnings, which were replied by him cannot be said to be not in his knowledge. While examining the service record of the petitioner, Z.P.C. had to consider not only the annual confidential remarks but his otherwise performance, behaviour and conduct before empanelling him for the post of A.G. II (Depot). 8. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court is not inclined to issue mandamus to the respondents to empanel the name of the petitioner for promotion. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.