JUDGEMENT 1. Counsel for the Union of India has filed counter affidavit copy whereof was served on the counsel for the petitioner on 25.10.2010, in response whereto counsel for the petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit. Pleadings made by the parties are on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union. 3. Petitioner is serving as Deputy Commandant in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred as the C.I.S.F.). He is aggrieved by the order dated 16.7.2010 and 11/13.8.2010 passed by the Director General, C.I.S.F. as contained in Annexures 26, 26A, whereunder his representation filed against the confidential remarks recorded by the reporting, reviewing, accepting authorities for the years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08 and 2008-09 has been rejected. 4. It submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while passing the aforesaid two impugned orders, the Director General, C.I.S.F. did not take into account materials available on record so as to allow the representation of the petitioner and to assess the remark of the petitioner as very good for the years under representation. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner having achieved the target for the years 2003-04, 2004-05 there was no occasion for the reporting officer to have assessed the petitioner as average, had the authorities appraised the materials on record for those years petitioner would have been assessed as very good for the two years. As regards the assessment year 2007-08, it is submitted that the reporting officer had assessed the petitioner as very good but the same was reduced to average by the reviewing and accepting officer without indicating any reason therefor. Aforesaid reduction in assessment is contrary to the circular of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India dated 16.11.2005 placed at page 256 of the brief. For the year 2008-09 it is submitted that reporting officer assessed the petitioner as good, the reviewing and the accepting officer having considered the records assessed the petitioner as very good, the Director General without indicating any reason assessed him as good. Such reduction in assessment without indicating reasons according to the petitioner is also in teeth of the circular of the Government of India dated 16.11.2005. 5. Such reduction in assessment without indicating reasons according to the petitioner is also in teeth of the circular of the Government of India dated 16.11.2005. 5. From perusal of order dated 16.7.2010, Annexure-26 it appears that the Director General has given reasons for not accepting the representation of the petitioner filed against the assessment made for the year 2004-2005 as according to the Director General from the remarks of the reporting officer itself it appeared that petitioner was lacking in supervisory ability and leadership quality and relying on such assessment of the reporting officer he agreed with the remarks of the reviewing and accepting officer that petitioner has been rightly assessed as average for the year 2004-05. I do not find any illegality in such appraisal by the Director General. 6. So far the assessment for the year 2003-04 is concerned, from perusal of the entire order dated 16.7.2010, Annexure-26, paragraph-4 it does not appear that Director General has given any reason as to why he is rejecting the representation of the petitioner submitted against the assessment made by the authorities for the year 2003- 04. For the year 2007-08 the reporting officer had assessed the petitioner as very good. The reviewing officer, however, reduced the remarks to average which was also accepted by the accepting officer but the two officers have not indicated any reason for such reduction in the assessment of the petitioner. The Director General while considering the representation of the petitioner filed against the assessment for the year 2007-08 was required to have examined the submissions in the light of the circular of the Government of India dated 16.11.2005 but it appears without considering the said circular the Director General has rejected the representation of the petitioner. For the year 2008-09 as well, petitioner was assessed as very good by the reviewing and accepting officer but the Director General without indicating any reason has reduced the assessment and has assessed him as good. In the light of the contents of circular of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India dated 16.11.2005, in my opinion, the Director General was also required to have given reasons in support of his assessment for the year 2008-09. In the light of the contents of circular of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India dated 16.11.2005, in my opinion, the Director General was also required to have given reasons in support of his assessment for the year 2008-09. The Director General and the authorities subordinate having not considered the circular dated 16.11.2005 while recording the assessment of the petitioner for the years 2003-04, 2007-08 and 2008-09 which were supplied to him pursuant to my order dated 23.11.2009, Annexure-14, as also while considering the representation filed against the assessment, I set aside the two impugned orders dated 16.7.2010 and 11/13.8.2010 Annexures-26 and 26A in part and direct the Director, Personnel, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to consider the representation of the petitioner submitted against the assessment made for the year 2003-04, 2007-08 and 2008-09 together with the records of those years and other relevant materials, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt of this order by the Director, Personnel. 7. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.