JUDGMENT Cyriac Joseph, CJ (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges Annexure-H order dated 19.9.2006 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No.8976/2002. As per Annexure-H order, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the applicant for automatic grant of special promotion to senior scale of pay under the Karnataka Civil Services (Automatic grant of special promotion to senior scale of pay) Rules, 1991. The Tribunal found that even though the petitioner had completed 15 years of continuous service without any promotion in the cadre of First Division Assistants on 5.2.1993, he was not granted the benefit of automatic grant of special promotion to senior scale, for the reason that there were adverse remarks in his Confidential Reports for the previous five years from 1988-89 to 1992-93. The Tribunal also found that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit as he did not have satisfactory record of service. 2. It is not disputed that for the year 1988-89 the Confidential Report of the petitioner contained an entry to the effect that he does not complete the work in time. For the year 1990-91 the Confidential Report contained an entry to the effect that the petitioner was not using Kannada language. For the year 1992-93 the Confidential Report contained an entry to the effect that he was unauthorisedly absent for long time. The petitioner has not disputed the existence of above mentioned entries in the Confidential Reports. In the light of such entries in the Confidential Reports of the petitioner, it cannot be said that he had satisfactory record of service during the relevant period. Under Rule-3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Automatic grant of special promotion to senior scale of pay) Rules, 1991, one of the requirements for grant of the benefit is satisfactory record of service and the satisfactory record of service should be determined in the same manner as merit is determined for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Therefore the respondents were justified in denying the benefit to the petitioner on the ground that he did not have satisfactory record of service during the relevant period in view of the adverse entries in his Confidential Reports. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Superintendent with effect from 4.1.1996. 3. Therefore the respondents were justified in denying the benefit to the petitioner on the ground that he did not have satisfactory record of service during the relevant period in view of the adverse entries in his Confidential Reports. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Superintendent with effect from 4.1.1996. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the adverse entries in the Confidential Reports were not communicated to the petitioner and therefore they could not be taken into account for determining his eligibility for automatic grant of promotion under the above mentioned rules. However learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any such averment in the O.A. filed before the Tribunal. The petitioner had no case that the adverse entries were not communicated to him. Hence he cannot raise such a contention in the Writ Petition. 4. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the Writ Petition. Writ Petition is dismissed.