JUDGMENT J.M. Malik, J.:- The burning point of discussion in this case is whether Average Remarks given in a particular Annual Confidential Report (In short ACR) not otherwise adverse but below the benchmark perscribed for a promotion must be communicated to the concerned employee. 2. On 6.10.1975, R.S. Tokas, the petitioner in this case, was appointed as Sub-Inspector /Exe in the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 (for short "CISF"). He was promoted to the rank of Inspector/Exe with effect from 31st August, 1985. As per CISF Act and Rules the higher grade is that of Assistant Commandant/Exe. Schedule-I of the Rules provides that 50% of the posts are to be filled in by promotion of Inspector/Exe, the candidates should have completed three years of regular service in the rank and have passed the matriculation examination of a recognised university or Board. On 30th August, 1999 the petitioner, who is a graduate, had completed 14 years of regular service. During service the petitioner earned as many as 120 cash rewards/ commendation certificates for his excellent service. 3. The DPC held meeting on 2nd February, 2000 at Ahmedabad. They were to consider the vacancies for the year 1999. Total number of 21 Inspectors/Exe were promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandants/ Exe vide order dated 1st April, 2000. The name of the petitioner did not find place in the above said list. The petitioner received response to his representation from Deputy Inspector General on 29th May, 2000. The relevant portion is reproduced as under: "2. The representation dated 4.4.2000 of Shri RS.Toka, Insp./Exe of CISF Unit. IPCL, Baroda has been examined at FHQrs. it has been intimated that his candidature for promotion to the rank of AC/Exe against the vacancies for the year 1999 was considered along with others in a DPC meeting held on 2.2.2000 at Ahmedabad and the exoneration order dated 1.2.2000 issued by IG/SWS Mumbai was also placed before the DPC. He could not be empanelled as AC/Exe against the vacancies for the year 1999 due to his last five years service records/DRs and in view of the Government instructions that- Whenever promotions are made for induction to Group A posts or services from lower groups, the benchmarks would continue to be Good. He could not be empanelled as AC/Exe against the vacancies for the year 1999 due to his last five years service records/DRs and in view of the Government instructions that- Whenever promotions are made for induction to Group A posts or services from lower groups, the benchmarks would continue to be Good. However, officers grade as outstanding would rank en-block senior to those who are graded as Very Good and officers grade as Very Good would rank enblock to those who are graded as "Good" and placed in the select panel accordingly up to the number of vacancies, officers with same graded maintaining their inter se seniority in the feeder post. 3. It is further stated that since he was exonerated from the charges vide IG/SWS order dated 1.2.2000, the sealed cover for the vacancy year 1998 vide OPC meeting held on 4th to 10 March, 1999 in the UPSC was opened with the approval of competent authority and it was found that he could not be empanelled as AC/Exe, for want of sufficient number of vacancies." 4. The petitioner was not communicated about downgrading of his ACR for the year 1998. The petitioner pointed out that he was always adjudged as very good from August 1985 till 1997. Suddenly, he was downgraded to Average in the year 1998 and no reason was assigned. He explained that initially the punishment in question was awarded in the month of October, 1999. His representation dated 9.6.2000 was considered and rejected in respect of ACR for the year 1998 on 2.4.2002 by OG/CISF. It is alleged that the concerned officers were biased and prejudicial due to the pendency of the departmental inquiry. At that point of time only the charges were levelled. The said punishment was set aside in the appeal. It is also pointed out that exoneration order dated 1st February, 2000 made at Mumbai was not placed before the OPC on 2nd February, 2000. Again the said fact was not mentioned in the records placed before the OPC for the vacancy year 1999. The said punishment was set aside in the appeal. It is also pointed out that exoneration order dated 1st February, 2000 made at Mumbai was not placed before the OPC on 2nd February, 2000. Again the said fact was not mentioned in the records placed before the OPC for the vacancy year 1999. Under these circumstances, the present writ petition was filed with the prayer that the regular promotions held on 2nd February, 2000 by the OPC at Ahmedabad for the vacancy year 1999 and ad hoc promotions by the OPC held on 14th October, 2000 be quashed, the order for superseding the petitioner and declaring him unfit by the OPC be superseded, the so-called Average/Adverse ACRs for the years 1998 and 1999 be quashed, the petitioner be promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant by constituting a review OPC for the vacancy year 1999 and in the meantime, the petitioner be granted ad hoc promotion till such time the review OPC is constituted for regular promotion for the vacancy year 1999. 5. The respondents have contested the present writ petition. This is an admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner could not be empanelled for not having better grading in view of the above detailed Government instructions about grading. Again, the petitioner was graded as "unfit" by the OPC based on his ACR grading in its meeting held on 24th October, 2000. The petitioner was graded as follows: Name 199319941995199619971998 R.S. Takas Very Outstan Good NIC GoodAverage (SLNo. 21 Good ding of ZOC) The respondents have categorically denied that his down grading was directly attributable to the penalty imposed upon him. It is averred that there is no provision in the rule to communicate grading given in the ACR. 6. We have heard the Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the respondents highlighted the fact that the respondents were not under an obligation to communicate the Average remarks to the petitioner. 7. We see no merit in this argument. It is now well settled that it is not necessary to communicate the remarks/grading which are not adverse or not below the benchmark prescribed for promotion to a particular post in respect of a selection post. In this particular case, the petitioner was not meeting the benchmark, therefore, the remarks should have been communicated to him. It is now well settled that it is not necessary to communicate the remarks/grading which are not adverse or not below the benchmark prescribed for promotion to a particular post in respect of a selection post. In this particular case, the petitioner was not meeting the benchmark, therefore, the remarks should have been communicated to him. It is settled law that an un-communicated adverse entry cannot be relied upon by the respondents for the purpose of considering the matter of promotion of a service personnel. The following cases apply to this case on all fours. 8. In a recent case in reference Dev Dult v. Union of India & Others, IV (2008) SLT 307=Civil Appeal No. 7631/2002 decided on 12th May, 2008, it was held: 1/10. In the present case the benchmark (i.e. the essential requirement) laid down by the authorities for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer was that the candidate should have very good for the last five years. Thus in this situation the good entry in fact is an adverse entry because it eliminates the candidate from being considered for promotion. Thus, nomenclature is not relevant, it is the effect which the entry is having which determines whether it is an adverse entry or not. It is thus the rigours of the entry which is important, not the phraseology. The grant of a good entry is of no satisfaction to the incumbent if it in fact makes him ineligible for promotion or has an adverse effect on his chances. 1/13. It has been held in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr., AIR 1978 SC 597 that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the non-communication of an entry in the ACR of a public servant is arbitrary because it deprives, the concerned employee from making a representation against it and praying for its up-gradation. In our opinion, every entry in the Annual Confidential Report of every employee under the State, whether he is in civil, judicial, police or other service (except the military) must be communicated to him, so as to enable him to make a representation against it, because non-communication deprives the employee of the opportunity of making a representation against it which may affect his chances of being promoted (or get some other benefits). Moreover, the object of writing the confidential report and making entries in them is to give an opportunity to a public servant to improve his performance, vide State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shankar Misra, AIR 1997 SC 3671 . Hence such non-communication is, in our opinion, arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 14. In our opinion, every entry (and not merely a poor/"or adverse, entry) relating to an employee under the State or an instrumentality of the State, whether in civil judicial police, or other service (except the military) must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, and it makes no difference whether there is a benchmark or not. Even if there is no benchmark, non-communication of an entry may adversely affect the employees chances of promotion (or getting some other benefit), because when comparative merit is being considered for promotion (or some other benefit) a person having a good or average or fair entry certainly has less chances of being selected than a person having a very good or outstanding entry. 19. In our opinion, every entry in the ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair, average, good or very good entry. This is because non-communication of such an entry may adversely affect the employee in two ways: (1) Had the entry been communicated to him he would know about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to improve his work in future. (2) He would have an opportunity of making a representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its up-gradation. Hence non-communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (supra) that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of tie Constitution. 20. Thus it is not only when there is a benchmark but in all cases that an entry (whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good) must be communicated to a public servant, otherwise there is violation of the principle of fairness, which is the soul of natural justice. Even an outstanding entry should be communicated since that would boost the morale of the employee and make him work harder. JJ 9. Even an outstanding entry should be communicated since that would boost the morale of the employee and make him work harder. JJ 9. Similar view was taken in S.T. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka and another, IV (2007) SL T 36= (2007) 9 SCC 436 ; Union of India and Another v. S.K. Goel and Others. 138 (2007) DLT 237 (SC)=III (2007) SLT 11= AIR 2007 SC 1199 and U.P. Jal Nigam and Others v. Prabhat Chandra Jain and Others, AIR 1966 SC 1661 . 10. For the reasons aforesaid, we direct the respondents to consider 1e case of the petitioner in the light of principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Dev Dutts case (supra) and in that eventuality the respondents shall hold review DPC ignoring entries which were below benchmark and not communicated to him. A proper decision in this respect be taken and speaking order be passed within eight weeks from today. This writ petition is disposed of in these terms. Writ Petition disposed of.