JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. The petitioner, who had joined the employment of respondent No.1-Corporation as Junior Clerk way back in the year 1992, was promoted as Junior Assistant in 1997 and thereafter as Senior Assistant on 11.6.2002 and was confirmed as such on 30.7.2003 in the pay scale of `5800-9200. Thereafter, on completion of seven years of service as Senior Assistant to be reckoned from 11.6.2002, he was entitled for the higher pay scale of `6400-10640 subject to his suitability for the post. Accordingly, he along with private respondent No.11 was considered for the said post, but on appraisal of his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the period 2004-05 to 2008-09, he was not found suitable by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), which met on 15.7.2009. Thereafter, he was again considered along with private respondent No.12 by the DPC in its meeting held on 18.11.2009, but met the same fate. 2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition on the following substantive prayers:- “i) Issue writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions quashing the order dated 28th July, 2009 i.e. Annexure P-7 whereby the junior person Shri Nand Lal (respondent No.11) & later DPC’s recommendation dated 18.11.2009 by which respondent No.12 has been recommended for the grant of time scale promotion on the post of Senior Assistant in Grade-I scale of Rs.6400-10640 over and above the petitioner. ii) Issue writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions quashing the order dated 15th September, 2009 i.e. Annexure P-10 whereby the representation of the petitioner dt. 19th August, 2009 have been rejected. iii) Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent to call review Departmental Promotion Committee and consider the case of the petitioner for the grant of time scale promotion on the post of Senior Assistant in Grade-I scale of Rs.6400-10640 from the due date, without considering the un-communicated adverse entries made in his ACRs or all intents and purposes.” 3. The petition is opposed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 mainly on the ground that “to adjudge the suitability, the DPC follows the same procedure as is followed for the promotion of an employee to higher post. The petition is opposed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 mainly on the ground that “to adjudge the suitability, the DPC follows the same procedure as is followed for the promotion of an employee to higher post. The suitability is assessed on the basis of gradation of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of concerned employee for the last five years and he is classified separately for each year as ‘Outstanding’, ‘Very Good’, ‘Good’ and ‘Fair/Average’. Each type of assessment carries 5, 4, 3 and 2 marks. Thereafter average marks are worked out by dividing the total marks by the same number of years for which confidential reports are considered. The employee who earns less than 2.5 average marks is classified as ‘Unfit’.” It is further stated that the overall assessment of four ACRs of the petitioner considered by the DPC were ‘Fair’ and in fifth ACR, the overall assessment was ‘Average’, meaning thereby that the overall average earned by the petitioner was less than 2.5%. Since as per the relevant instructions, the said ACRs were not adverse, those were not required to be communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, the representation dated 19.11.2009 submitted by the petitioner for the expunction of adverse remarks was not required to be considered. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 5. By placing reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and others (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 725 (paras 10 & 13) and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India and others (2009) 16 Supreme Court Cases 146 (paras 5, 8 & 9), it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the ACRs on the basis of which he was allegedly not found suitable were never communicated to him and as such the same could not have been made basis for ignoring him for grant of the higher pay scale. 6. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondent-Corporation that the settled legal position is that though an employee has a vested legal right for consideration for promotion, yet he cannot claim such promotion as a matter of right. The petitioner, who was not found suitable for grant of the higher pay scale, can have no grievance in law. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondent-Corporation that the settled legal position is that though an employee has a vested legal right for consideration for promotion, yet he cannot claim such promotion as a matter of right. The petitioner, who was not found suitable for grant of the higher pay scale, can have no grievance in law. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.B. Bhattacharjee vs. S.D. Majumdar and others (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 513 (para 13), Union of India and another vs. S.K. Goel and others (2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases 641 (Paras 27 & 28), Hardev Singh vs. Union of India and another (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 121 (para 17) and by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Om Parkash, Conductor vs. State of Haryana and others 2006 (3) SLR 46 (Para 9). 7. Since admittedly the entries in the ACRs for the relevant period (2004-05 to 2008-09), which are Fair/Average and also contained certain ‘Advisory’ and ‘Adverse’ remarks were not communicated to the petitioner and copies of the same (Annexure P.13 colly.) were obtained by him under Right to Information Act, the same could not have been found basis for ignoring the petitioner for grant of the higher pay scale, as has been authoritatively held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt (supra), which in turn was further reiterated in the case of Abhijit Ghosh (supra). 8. The record reveals that the petitioner had submitted representation dated 1.4.2010, Annexure P.14, for review of the aforesaid ACRs to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation. Vide communication dated 4.6.2010, Annexure P.15, the petitioner was informed that the representation submitted by him was being sent to the Competent Authority for review. 9. 8. The record reveals that the petitioner had submitted representation dated 1.4.2010, Annexure P.14, for review of the aforesaid ACRs to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation. Vide communication dated 4.6.2010, Annexure P.15, the petitioner was informed that the representation submitted by him was being sent to the Competent Authority for review. 9. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the disputed ACRs pertained to the period 2004-05 to 2008-09, no opportunity is left for him to make any improvement in his work and conduct, as these ACRs were never communicated to him and further since in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt (supra), these cannot be relied upon to his detriment, it shall be expedient and in the interest of justice that his case for grant of higher pay scale is reconsidered by the respondent-Corporation on the basis of his overall service record including his ACRs for the previous and subsequent period. 10. Once the disputed ACRs for the period 2004-05 to 2008-09, are taken out of consideration as not having been communicated to the petitioner, his case for grant of higher pay scale can be considered only on the basis of his overall service record including his previous and subsequent ACRs and in case the disputed ACRs for the period 2004-05 to 2008-09 are reviewed by the respondent-Corporation, the same can also be taken into consideration. 11. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to respondents No.1 and 2/Competent Authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of higher pay scale of `6400-10640 along with designation of Senior Assistant Grade-I on the basis of his overall service record including his ACRs for the previous and subsequent period and in case his ACRs for the disputed period 2004-05 to 2008-09 are also reviewed in the meantime by taking into consideration the same as well, within four months from today, by holding a review DPC and in case he is found suitable, he shall be granted the higher pay scale along with the higher designation from the due date, that is, the date from which his juniors, respondents No.11 and 12, were granted such benefits. 12. The petition, as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of.