JUDGMENT 1. - Counsel for petitioner submits that the work of the petitioner was reported in his ACRs for the year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 as 'very good' and 'excellent' respectively by the reporting officer but at a higher stage the same were downgraded by the accepting authority as 'good' and below the 'bench mark' respectively without affording opportunity or hearing to the petitioner. 2. In support of his submissions, counsel has placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2008)8 SCC 725 , Dev Dutt v. Union of India and submits that if he is considered taking note of the down graded remarks in the two respective ACRs referred to (supra), prejudice will cause to him and he will deprived of his fair consideration. 3. Counsel for respondents have not been able to controvert so far as the factual matrix of the matter is concerned, however, submit that the overall record was considered by the Committee while making its recommendations to the Commission. 4. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court considers it appropriate that the remarks, which were down-graded in the two ACRs of the petitioner for the year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 be ignored and his candidature may be considered afresh by the respondents for selection under the Indian Administrative Services (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997. 5. Both the parties jointly submit that the writ petition itself may be disposed of in above terms. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly disposed with the observations made (supra).Writ Petition Disposed of as per Above Observations. *******