JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Jamir, Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. I.S. Jamir, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland, appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1., 2, 3 and 6. Also heard Mr. N. Mozhui, Learned Counsel appearing for the Nagaland Public Service Commission, i.e. the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and Mr. Longjem, Learned Counsel, appearing for the private respondent No. 7. With the consent of the Learned Counsel, appearing for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 2. This is the second round of litigation, brought by the petitioner, challenging the' promotion of the private respondent No. 7, on the ground that the said promotion has been made arbitrarily and without following due process of the law. 3. The petitioner joined the Sericulture Department, Govt. of Nagaland; as Extension Officer on 4.3.1981, while the private respondent No. 7 joined the said post on 4.2.1982. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director with effect from 8.10.1998 and the private respondent No. 7 was promoted as Assistant Director on 8.12.2001. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner and the private respondent No. 7 were promoted to the post of the Deputy Director on 19.3.2008 and thereafter, both of them were promoted to the post of Joint Director on 28.1.2010. The post of Joint Director is the feeder post for promotion to the post of Additional Director. Both the petitioner and the private respondent No. 7, having good service career all through out, were aspirant for promotion to the post of the Additional Director of the Department Sericulture, which had fallen vacant on 30.9.2010. 5. In the process initiated for filling up the said post, the particulars of the eligible candidates were submitted by the Director of Sericulture to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Sericulture Department on 21.9.2010 and in the said communication, the name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 1 and the name of the private respondent No. 7 was shown at Serial No. 2. By order, dated 1.2.2011, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, the private respondent No. 7 was promoted to the post of Additional Director (Sericulture), Class I gazetted. 6. By order, dated 1.2.2011, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, the private respondent No. 7 was promoted to the post of Additional Director (Sericulture), Class I gazetted. 6. Aggrieved by the said promotion, the petitioner challenged the said promotion, by filing a writ petition, being WP(c) No. 23(k)/2011, on the ground that the said promotion was made without any recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the DPC") and also without following the provisions of the service rules. While disposing the said writ petition, this Court came to the findings that no recommendation was made by the DPC and that the said promotion was made on officiating basis, as a measure of temporary arrangement, subject to recommendation by the DPC. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 1.2.2011, by which the said promotion was made, in favour of the private respondent No. 7, was set aside and quashed, directing the respondent No. 2 to take necessary steps for holding the DPC for considering the promotion to fill up the said post of Additional Director. With the above direction, the writ petition was disposed of. 7. In compliance with the said direction, made by this Court, a meeting of the DPC, was held on 29.8.2011 to consider the matter for filling up the post of Additional Director, by promotion. The meeting of the DPC held on 29.8.2011, considering the seniority list, vigilance clearance, ACR for last five years i.e. from 2007 to 2011 etc. recommended the respondent No. 7 for promotion to the post of the Additional Director (Sericulture) with effect from 29.8.2011. On the basis of the said recommendation, by Notification dated 7th September, 2011, the private respondent No. 7 was promoted to the post of Additional Director with effect from 29.8.2011. 8. Aggrieved by the said recommendation made by the DPC and the subsequent promotion order aforesaid, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition, challenging the correctness of the decision making process of the DPC and for setting aside the said recommendation as well as the promotion, made in favour of the private respondent No. 7. The State respondents and the private respondent No. 7 filed separate affidavit-in-opposition. 9. The State respondents and the private respondent No. 7 filed separate affidavit-in-opposition. 9. According to the petitioner, he was all along senior to the private respondent No. 7 and as per the provision of Rule 15(c) of the Nagaland Sericulture Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the Service Rules"), the DPC, while considering the promotion, should have given due regard to the seniority of the petitioner. 10. It has also been contended that the entries made in the ACR of the petitioner was not communicated to him and that if there was any adverse remarks so as to disqualify the petitioner from getting promotion, the same should have been brought to his notice. It is the case of the petitioner that the DPC recommended for promotion of the private respondent No. 7 completely ignoring the seniority position of the petitioner and that the recommendation has been made on irrelevant grounds, thereby illegally depriving the petitioner from promotion. 11. In the affidavit-in-opposition, filed on behalf of the State respondents, it has been stated that the DPC considered the cases of the petitioner and the private respondent No. 7 as per the provisions prescribed by the Service Rules i.e. on the basis of merit and suitability with due regard to seniority and that the State respondents committed no error by promoting the private respondent No. 7, on the basis of the recommendation made by the DPC. 12. The private respondent No. 7, in his affidavit-in opposition, has stated that the DPC, after making due assessment on the performance of the petitioner as well as the answering defendant, found the later more suitable and as such rightly recommended him for promotion, on the basis of merit and suitability following the provisions, prescribed by the Service Rules. 13. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, referring to the civil list in respect of the Sericulture Department (Annexure-D to the Writ Petition), the incumbency list of the employees (Annexure-E), the tentative seniority list (Annexure-F) has submitted that the petitioner joined the service as Extension Officer on 4.3.1981, i.e. prior to the entry of the private respondent No. 7, who joined the service on 4.2.1982. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner was senior at the entry level. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner was senior at the entry level. Drawing attention of this Court to the said tentative seniority list, the learned senior counsel has also pointed out that the petitioner was promoted to the next higher grade i.e. the Assistant Director with effect from 8.10.1998, while the private respondent No. 7 was promoted to the said post on 18.12.2001. 14. The learned senior counsel, referring to the tentative seniority list dated 8th August, 2011 (Annexure-L) has submitted that though the petitioner and the private respondent No. 7 were promoted to the post of Deputy Director on 19.3.2008 and Joint Director on 28.1.2010, the petitioner, on the basis of his entry in the service and not being superseded, at any time i.e. nor to the recommendation of the DPC, was senior to the private respondent. 15. In view of the above, the learned senior counsel has strenuously argued that the petitioner, being senior in the entry level as well as in the rank of Assistant Director, should have been treated as senior to the private respondent No. 7. According to the learned senior counsel, though the petitioner and the private respondent No. 7 were promoted to the posts of Deputy Director and the Joint Director, on the same dates, the seniority of the petitioner should have been maintained and as such the DPC committed gross error by holding that, in view of their promotion to the post of Deputy Director and the Joint Director on the same dates, they were on equal footing in terms of seniority. In view of the above, it is submitted that the recommendation made by the DPC, on such erroneous view, suffers from illegality and arbitrariness. 16. The learned senior counsel, referring to the integrity certificates, issued by the Director on 8.8.2011, i.e. prior to holding of the meeting of the DPC, has submitted that the Director certified both the petitioner and the private respondent No. 7 to be qualified, senior, dedicated, trustworthy, resourceful, hard working officers, that both the candidates were having good moral character and that there was no adverse remark, all though out their career. 17. In view of the above, certificates, issued by the appropriate authority, the learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner was no way inferior to the respondent No. 7 and that he being senior in service should have been recommended for promotion. 17. In view of the above, certificates, issued by the appropriate authority, the learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner was no way inferior to the respondent No. 7 and that he being senior in service should have been recommended for promotion. The learned senior counsel has also submitted that the entries made in the ACR, in respect of the petitioner were never communicated to him and as such, the petitioner was ignorant about any deficiency or about grade given to him which was lower than that of the private respondent. It is submitted that had the remarks, made in the ACR, been communicated to the petitioner, he would have certainly made representation to the concerned authority for upgradation or modification. Therefore, it is submitted that the failure, on the part of the authority, to communicate the entry made in the ACR, which disqualified the petitioner from getting the promotion, amounted to violation of the principle of natural justice. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the adverse consideration of the petitioner's case for promotion, on the basis of the uncommunicated ACR, was illegal, unlawful and against the principle of natural justice. The learned senior counsel has also submitted that consideration of the commendations made/certificates issued, by the extra departmental authority in respect of the private respondent No. 7 was not lawful and that the DPC ought to have considered the recommendations/remarks made by the officers, authorized to make the entry in the ACR. It is submitted, on behalf of the petitioner, that reliance placed by the DPC on the uncommunicated remarks of ACR in respect of the petitioner and certificates issued by the authorities not authorized to writ ACR has caused much prejudice to the petitioner and that the same has amounted to violence of principle of natural justice. 18. In view of the above, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the said recommendation, made by the DPC and the consequent promotion order, made in favour of the private respondent No. 7, thereby depriving the petitioner, are liable to be set aside and quashed. 19. In support of his contentions, Mr. Jamir, the learned senior counsel, has relied the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 and the case of Baharul Islam v. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2003 (2) GLT 482. 20. 19. In support of his contentions, Mr. Jamir, the learned senior counsel, has relied the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 and the case of Baharul Islam v. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2003 (2) GLT 482. 20. Controverting the argument, advanced by the learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that the DPC recommended the case of the private respondent No. 7 following the Rules 15(c) and the procedure laid down by the Service Rules. It is also contended by the learned Addl. Advocate General that the DPC considered the service record of the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 and found that the merit and suitability of the respondent No. 7 was higher than the petitioner. Therefore, it has been submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General that the State respondents committed no error by promoting the respondent No. 7 and as such there is no scope for interference by this Court. 21. Mr. N. Mozhui, Learned Counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission i.e. the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has submitted that the DPC, while considering the cases of the petitioner as well as the private respondent No. 7, considered the entire service records, more particularly the ACRs and the commendations certificates issued in favour of the private respondent and finding the merit of the private respondent No. 7 higher than the petitioner recommended the former. The Learned Counsel has produced the records of the DPC, in support of his contention. Mr. Mozhui has also submitted that the Rule 15(c) of the Service Rules provides that the selection should be made on merit and suitability in all respect with due regard to seniority of the candidates and that the DPC followed the said procedure at the time of making the recommendation aforesaid. 22. Mr. I. Longjem, Learned Counsel appearing for the private respondent No. 7, in tune with the arguments advanced by the learned Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Mozhui, the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and 5, has submitted that the private respondent No. 7 was discharging his duties sincerely to the entire satisfaction of the authorities concerned and that he received various commendations from the authorities. Advocate General and Mr. Mozhui, the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and 5, has submitted that the private respondent No. 7 was discharging his duties sincerely to the entire satisfaction of the authorities concerned and that he received various commendations from the authorities. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel that the merit of the private respondent being higher, the DPC committed no error by recommending his case for promotion to the post of Additional Director. The Learned Counsel has also contended that in a case where promotion is required to be made on the basis of merit and suitability with due regard to seniority, the merit should be given top priority and the best candidate is to be selected. In support of his argument, the Learned Counsel has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, held in the case of Union of India and others v. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan and another, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 698 . 23. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the records, more particularly, the records submitted by the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 24. The tentative seniority list, dated 8th August, 2001 (Annexure L) reveals that the petitioner joined the service as Extension Officer with effect from 4.3-1981 and the private respondent No. 7 joined the said post on 4.2.1982. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Director on 8.10.1998 and the private respondent No. 7 was promoted to the post of Assistant Director on 18.12.2011. The said seniority list appears to be circulated amongst all the incumbents including the petitioner and the private respondent No. 7. There is nothing to show that the private respondent No. 7 raised any objection in respect of any mistake in the said seniority list. Therefore, there is no dispute that the petitioner was senior in service to the respondent No. 7, at the entry level as well as in the rank of Assistant Director. 25. The said seniority list further reveals that both the petitioner and the private respondent No. 7 were promoted to the posts of Deputy Director on 19.3.2008 and Joint Director on 28.1.2010. 26. There is no dispute to the said position. 25. The said seniority list further reveals that both the petitioner and the private respondent No. 7 were promoted to the posts of Deputy Director on 19.3.2008 and Joint Director on 28.1.2010. 26. There is no dispute to the said position. The question is whether, in view of the promotion of the petitioner and the private respondent No. 7 to the next higher grades i.e. to the rank of Deputy Director and the Joint Director, on the same dates, the petitioner lost his initial seniority. The DPC, while considering the matter observed that, in view of the said promotions made on the same dates, both the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 were on equal footing in terms of their seniority. Thus, the DPC came to the conclusion that the petitioner was no longer senior to the private respondent No. 7. 27. The learned senior counsel strenuously urged that, though the subsequent promotions were made on the same dates, the original seniority of the petitioner would continue in the higher rank also inasmuch as he was never superseded by his junior, The question of seniority on a similar matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharul Islam (supra). In the above referred case, the private respondent No. 4 joined the school in question, as teacher on 10.2.1971 when the appellant joined the school on 1.6.1973. At the time of joining, both of them were under-graduate and both of them got graduate scale on the same date. Therefore, the respondent No. 4 contended that he having joined earlier in the school should be considered senior to the appellant. The learned single Judge held that the date of entry should be counted for the purpose of seniority. While dismissing the appeal, preferred by the appellant and upholding the decision of the learned single Judge, the Division Bench held that it was the date of joining which should be determining factor for seniority. 28. In View of the above, there can be no dispute that, unless a candidate is superseded by his junior at any stage/rank, the initial seniority, should be counted for all purposes, including promotion to the next higher grade. The subsequent promotion made, if any, on the same date, will not adversely effect the initial i.e. entry level seniority of the employee unless such employee is superseded by his junior. The subsequent promotion made, if any, on the same date, will not adversely effect the initial i.e. entry level seniority of the employee unless such employee is superseded by his junior. Admittedly, the petitioner was not superseded, till the impugned promotion order. 29. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the findings of the DPC that both the petitioner and the private respondent No. 7, having been promoted to the next higher grade i.e. to the rank of Deputy Director and Joint Director on same dates, were on equal footing in terms of seniority, is not correct. 30. Admittedly, the DPC considered the case of the petitioner and the private respondent No. 7, keeping in mind that both of them were equal in respect of seniority, thereby meaning that the petitioner was not senior to the private respondent No. 7. Therefore, the said recommendation, made by the DPC, on such erroneous view in respect of seniority and due to non-application of mind, suffers from illegality. 31. The criteria/procedure for promotion has been provided by Rule 15(c) of the Service Rules, which reads as follows : Rule 15(c) : On receipt of the particulars under sub-rule (b) above, the Government shall furnish such particulars with comments, if any, indicating the number of vacancy/vacancies and other relevant matters as may be necessary to the Commission. The Committee when called upon by the Commission shall meet and prepare a list of officer(s) equal to the number of vacancy/vacancies, in order of preference to be filled on by promotion. Whenever a junior officer is selected in preference to a senior one, the Committee shall record in writing the reason of such supper cession. The select list shall be valid for one year from the date of its approval by the Commission under sub-rule (e) below of the Rule. All vacancies arising shall be filled up from that list. The selection shall be based on Merit and suitability in all respect with due regard to seniority in the following aspects of the candidate viz.--; (i) Personality and Character. (ii) Tact, Energy and General intelligence. (iii) Integrity. (iv) Performance. (v) Minimum 5 (five) years record of service. 32. The Learned Counsel, appearing for the respondents, contended that the promotion was made on the basis of merit and suitability and that the merit of the private respondent No. 7 being higher, he was promoted. 33. (ii) Tact, Energy and General intelligence. (iii) Integrity. (iv) Performance. (v) Minimum 5 (five) years record of service. 32. The Learned Counsel, appearing for the respondents, contended that the promotion was made on the basis of merit and suitability and that the merit of the private respondent No. 7 being higher, he was promoted. 33. Controverting the said argument advanced by the Learned Counsel, appearing for the respondents, Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, putting stress on the words "with due regard to seniority", appearing in the said clause, has submitted that the DPC should have must in mind that the petitioner was senior to the private respondent and in that view of the matter, the DPC should have given due regard to the seniority. But according to the learned senior counsel, the DPC completely ignored the seniority of the petitioner. It has also been contended that the petitioner being the senior, without any adverse remarks, should have been recommended for promotion. It is also submitted that if there was any disqualifying remarks, on the part of the petitioner, adversely affecting his promotional scope to the higher rank, the authority should have brought such remarks or gradings made in the ACR, to the notice of the petitioner so as to facilitate him to take appropriate steps to remove such disqualification. 34. Undisputedly, the promotion, as per the Service Rules, is required to be made on the basis of merit and suitability with due regard to seniority. This question came up for consideration in the case of Union of India (supra), and the Supreme Court observed as follows : 12. Whenever fitness is stipulated as the basis of selection, it is regarded as a non-selection post to be filled on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. Fitness means fitness in all respects. "Seniority-cum-merit" postulates the requirement of certain minimum merit or satisfying a benchmark previously fixed. Subject to fulfilling this requirement the promotion is basis on seniority. There is no requirement of assessment of comparative merit both in the case of seniority-cum-fitness and seniority-cum-merit. Merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority as prescribed in the case of promotion to All India services necessarily involves assessment of comparative merit of all eligible candidates, and selecting the best out of them. 35. There is no requirement of assessment of comparative merit both in the case of seniority-cum-fitness and seniority-cum-merit. Merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority as prescribed in the case of promotion to All India services necessarily involves assessment of comparative merit of all eligible candidates, and selecting the best out of them. 35. In View of the above, there is no difficulty in understanding that when the criteria for promotion is 'merit and suitability with due regard to seniority', assessment of comparative merit of all eligible candidates is required to be made and the best out of them with due regard to seniority is to be selected. The law maker has not indicated complete Ignorance or exclusion of the seniority factor from consideration. Otherwise the law maker would not have included the words "with due regard to the seniority". Therefore, if a candidate secures the required bench mark then his seniority is also required to be considered. The DPC, while making the recommendation, made the following observations: Considering the service records, more particularly their ACRs and commendations Certificates awarded to Shri Chandan Besera, the DPC recommends the promotion of Shri Chandan Basera to the post of Additional Director of Sericulture w.e.f. 29/08/2011. The comparative chart of Shri Imkongkumzuk, Joint Director and Shri Chandan Besera, Joint Director which was prepared by the Department is quoted below : Sl No. Name & designation Date of Birth Educational qualification Date of entry into service Date of last promotion ACRs Grading for last 5 years Vigilance clearance 1. Shri Imkongkumzuk Joint Director 01/03/55 B.Sc, PGDS 04/ 03/ 81 28/01/10 2007-Good, 2008-Good, 2009-Good, 2010-Good, 2011-Good Yes 2. Shri Chandan Basera 15/11/57 B.Sc., PGDS 04/02/82 28/01/10 2007-OS, 2008-OS, 2009-OS, 2010-OS, 2011-OS Yes Sd/- Illegible (Dr. V. v. Hokuto Zhimomi) Chairman, NPSC. 36. From the above, it appears that the petitioner was given the grading "Good" during the last five years i.e. during the period from 2007 to 2011, while the private respondent No. 7 was given "Out Standing" during the said period. Admittedly, the remarks given to the private respondent No. 7, during the said period was much better than the petitioner. 37. There is no dispute to the contention, raised by the petitioner, that the remark "good" entered in his ACR, during the said period, was not communicated to him. Therefore, he was not given any opportunity to submit representation for upgradation of the said remarks. 37. There is no dispute to the contention, raised by the petitioner, that the remark "good" entered in his ACR, during the said period, was not communicated to him. Therefore, he was not given any opportunity to submit representation for upgradation of the said remarks. 38. Now, the question is whether such uncommunicated remarks/entry should have been taken as basis for considering the promotion and to disqualify the petitioner on the ground that his merit was less than the private respondent No. 7. Fact remains that, the controlling authority, i.e. the Director, on 8.8.2011 i.e. immediately before taking up the matter by the DPC, certified both the petitioner and the private respondent in similar manner as indicated above. The said certificates do not indicate the one of them was inferior to other. 39. The law regarding use of remarks made in the ACR and the effect of non-communication of entry, made in the ACR has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of India (supra). The Supreme Court held that all gradings whether "Very Good, Good, Average or Poor" are required to be communicated to the concerned employee working under the Govt. offices, statutory bodies, public sector undertakings or other State instrumentalities, (Except the Military), where constitutional obligation and principle of natural justice and fair play are applied. 40. In the above referred case, the appellant, who was serving in the Border Road Engineering Service, was included in the list of candidates eligible for promotion, but the DPC declined to promote him to the rank of Superintending Engineer and thus, he was superseded by his junior. The contention of the respondents was that the candidates having "Very Good" entries in their ACRs for last five years were considered for promotion. The grievance of the appellant was that he was not communicated with the "Good" entry for the year 1993-94. He submitted that had he been communicated the entry, he would have had an opportunity of making a representation for upgrading the entries "Good", as "Very Good" and if that representation was allowed, he would have also become eligible for promotion. In the said case it was submitted that the rules of natural justice was violated. 41. Before the disposal of the appeal, the appellant retired from service. In the said case it was submitted that the rules of natural justice was violated. 41. Before the disposal of the appeal, the appellant retired from service. While allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed, that "Good", entry, made in the ACR, be communicated to the appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment and that in the event of submission of any representation by the appellant, the same should be decided within a period of two month thereof. It was made clear that if the entry was upgraded, the appellant should be considered for promotion retrospectively by the DPC and if the appellant was selected for the promotion retrospectively, he should be given pension with arrear pay and interest at the rate of Rs. 8.00 % per annum till the date of retirement. 42. The Supreme Court also relied on the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 wherein it was held that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court opined that non communication of any entry of ACR of a public servant is arbitrary because it deprives the employee concerned from making a representation against it and praying for its up-gradation. The Supreme Court further opined that 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 to get some other benefits). Referring to the case of State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shankar Misra, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 7 , the Supreme Court pointed out that 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. It has also been held by the Supreme Court that such non-communication is, arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 43. Admittedly, the DPC considered ACRs for the years 2007 to 2011. It has also been held by the Supreme Court that such non-communication is, arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 43. Admittedly, the DPC considered ACRs for the years 2007 to 2011. ACR being written at the completion of the calendar year i.e. after 31st of December of the concerned calendar year, In view of the said decision rendered by the Supreme Court on 12.5.2008, the authority concerned was duty bound to communicate the remarks made in the ACR of 2007, in 2008 and also the subsequent remarks in the ACR in the succeeding years. Therefore, fact remains that the said requirement has not been complied with and that, the petitioner's right to submit representation for upgradation of his grading was denied. 44. In view of the above, principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in respect of writing of ACR and use of the remarks, made in the ACR, there is no difficulty in understanding that uncommunicated remarks, made in the ACR, cannot be used as basis for promotion and any use of such remarks would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The settled law is that, immediately after making the entry in the ACR, the remarks should be communicated to the employee, thereby giving him an opportunity to submit representation and if any representation is made, then the same should be decided in a fair manner within a reasonable period. Such representation should be decided by an authority higher than the one, who made the entry, so as to rule out any likelihood of summarily rejecting the same without adequate consideration. 45. In the case at hand, if such opportunity was given to the petitioner by communicating the entry "Good" he would have got an opportunity to make a representation for upgrading the remarks and if his remarks were upgraded as "Out Standing" then he, being senior, would have become eligible for promotion. Therefore, failure to communicate the entry "Good" to the petitioner, deprived him from exercising his right to submit representation for up-gradation of the entry in the ACR. Therefore, this failure, coupled with the adverse use of uncommunicated grading, amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. 46. Therefore, failure to communicate the entry "Good" to the petitioner, deprived him from exercising his right to submit representation for up-gradation of the entry in the ACR. Therefore, this failure, coupled with the adverse use of uncommunicated grading, amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. 46. In the teeth of the above decision, held in the case of Dev Dutta (supra), the recommendation made by the DPC, on 29.8.2011, recommending the private respondent No. 7 for promotion, thereby negating the petitioner's candidature, on the basis of the uncommunicated entry, made in the ACR, cannot stand in the eye of law. On the face of the record, said recommendation made by the DPC is contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court. 47. Therefore, non-communication of the entry, made in the ACR of the petitioner and use of such ACR as basis for consideration of the promotion, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I find sufficient merit in this writ petition, requiring interference with the recommendation made by the DPC and the consequent promotion order. Accordingly, the impugned recommendation and the promotion order aforesaid are hereby set aside and quashed. 48. It is directed that "Good" entry made in the ACR of the petitioner, during the period of 2007-2011, be communicated to the petitioner forthwith and he be given an opportunity to make representation against the same for its up-gradation, and such representation, if made within the stipulated period, shall be considered by an authority higher than the one, who made the entry in the ACRs of the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter regarding promotion to the post of Additional Director shall be taken up by the D.P.C. 49. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.