ORDER Shantanu Kemkar, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Food Officer. He has challenged his non-promotion from the post of Food Inspector to Assistant Food Inspector by filing OA No. 760/2000 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal Indore (for short the Tribunal). On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter has reached to this Court for adjudication. 2. According to the petitioner, he has been denied the promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short the DPC) taking into consideration the un-communicated adverse remark which was actually communicated to him after the meeting of the DPC was held. It is the case of the petitioner that in the meeting of the DPC held on 24-8-1999, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who are junior to him were promoted. According to the petitioner, the DPC could not have considered the adverse confidential remark and the gradings which were not communicated to him till the meeting of the DPC was held. He submits that non-communication of adverse entry made in Annual Confidential Report has caused serious prejudice to him. He submits that had he been communicated that entry he would have had an opportunity of making a representation for up-grading that entry and he would have also become eligible for promotion. He, therefore, claimed the benefit of promotion to the post of Assistant Food Officer from the date when his juniors were promoted. 3. The respondent No. 1 and 2 have filed return and have not disputed that the respondent No. 3 and 4 were junior to the petitioner. However, according to the respondent No. 1 and 2 the petitioners name for promotion was considered in the meeting of the DPC convened on 24-8-1999. The DPC laid down certain norms for inclusion of the eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Assistant Food Officer. The criteria for promotion was seniority-cum-merit and the norms which were fixed was that the integrity should be beyond doubt and in the last five years A.C.Rs. the general assessment should be minimum of 'good' grade and the candidate should not have received 'poor' grade in end of the year. In the preceding two years gradings he should have received two 'goods'. In case in any year he has received 'poor' than two upset that entry in the next year he should have received 'good' grading. the general assessment should be minimum of 'good' grade and the candidate should not have received 'poor' grade in end of the year. In the preceding two years gradings he should have received two 'goods'. In case in any year he has received 'poor' than two upset that entry in the next year he should have received 'good' grading. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 and 2 that the petitioners A.C.Rs. were not found to be in accordance with the norms fixed by the DPC. It is stated that the petitioner received 'very good' in the year 1994 good' in the years, 1995, 1996 and 1997. In the year 1998 he received 'average' grading. In the circumstances, having regard to the fact that the petitioner received 'Ga' grading in the year 1998 and not received two 'goods' in the preceding two years as such, he was not found fit for promotion. 4. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the DPC filed by the respondents as Annexure R/2 it is clear, that the 'average' entry of the year 1998 was not communicated to the petitioner prior to the holding of the meeting by the DPC. It was communicated to him on 4-9-1999 after the meeting was held and the said average entry was taken into consideration for not holding him fit for promotion. 5. Thus, it is clear, that the petitioner has been denied the promotion acting upon 'average' entry of the year 1998. The said entry admittedly was not communicated to the petitioner till his case for promotion was considered by the DPC. It is now well settled that an adverse remark in an confidential role cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the support. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its object, partially, being to enable the Superior Authorities to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified. See Gurudial Singh Fijji vs. State of Punjab and others, (1979) 2 SCC 368 . Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its object, partially, being to enable the Superior Authorities to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified. See Gurudial Singh Fijji vs. State of Punjab and others, (1979) 2 SCC 368 . Kishanlal Patle vs. Government of M.P. and others, 2007 (1) M.P.H.T. 21 , Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and ors., AIR 2008 SCW 3486 . In the case of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India (supra) the Supreme Court in paragraph 18, 19, 20 and 24 has observed thus: 18. For example, if the bench-mark is that an incumbent must have 'Very good' entries in the last five years, then if he has 'very-good' (or even 'outstanding') entries for four years, a 'good' entry for only one year may yet make him ineligible for promotion. This 'good' entry may be due to the personal pique of his superior, or because the superior asked him to do something wrong which the incumbent refused, or because the incumbent refused to do sycophancy of his superior, or because of caste or communal prejudice, or for some other extraneous consideration. 19. In our opinion, every entry in the A.C.R. 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 noncommunication 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 upgradation. Hence non-communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra) that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution. 20. Thus it is not only when there is a bench-mark 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. 20. Thus it is not only when there is a bench-mark 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. 24. It may be mentioned that communication of entries and giving opportunity to represent against them is particularly important on higher posts which are in a pyramidical structure where often the principle of elimination is followed in selection for promotion, and even a single entry can destroy the career of an officer which has otherwise been outstanding throughout. This often results in grave injustice and heartburning, and may shatter the morale of many good officers who are superseded due to this arbitrariness, while officers of inferior merit may be promoted. 6. Having considered the aforesaid legal position in my view the denial of promotion to the petitioner on the basis of 'average' entry of the year 1998 which was not communicated to him till the meeting of the DPC was held, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and as such, the action on the part of the respondent No. 1 and 2 cannot be sustained. 7. In view of the aforesaid observation, I am inclined to allow this petition, with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the aforesaid ACR of the year 1998 if the same has not already been made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of the petitioners representation, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall take appropriate decision on it and if a decision is taken for upgrading of the petitioners A.C.R. his case be considered forthwith for promotion on the post of Assistant Food Officer retrospectively by the DPC. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 9. No orders as to the costs. Petition allowed