JUDGMENT : A.M, Khanwilkar, Chief Justice (Oral): This appeal takes exception to the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 7.9.2006 in W. P. No.1564/1996. 2. By the said writ petition the respondents had made grievance about having been superseded by his juniors (Respondents No.4 to 8) as Dy. Director from the post of Manager. The stand taken by the respondents in the writ petition /appellants herein to counter the grievance of the writ petitioner was founded on the ACRs for the years 1992-93,1993-94 and 1994-95. At the same time, the appellants plainly accepted the position that the ACRs pertaining to years 1992-93 and 1993-94, even on a closer scrutiny, were nothing, but, advisory. However, according to them, the ACR for the year 1994-95, by no stretch of imagination, could be described as advisory. That on the face of it, was adverse remark noted against the writ petitioner. No doubt the learned Single Judge has opined that even the said confidential report pertaining to year 1994-95 was advisory in nature. However, the learned Single Judge has not recorded any reason as to why in spite of the stand taken by the appellant that it was adverse in nature, ought to be treated as advisory only. Notably, the learned Single Judge has not even adverted to the contents of the said document, Annexure R-9 (Annexure P-6 to the writ petition). That cannot be countenanced. 3. In the circumstances, we set aside the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the ACRs pertaining to year 1994-95 was advisory in nature; and instead we relegate the parties before the learned Single Judge for re-examination of the issue afresh. Learned Single Judge after analyzing the relevant document, Annexure R-9 (Annexure P-6 to the writ petition) and the documents to be relied upon by the writ petitioners in support of the arguments that the contents of Annexure R-9, even if taken at its face value, ought to be treated as advisory or adverse, as the case may be. After examination of the relevant documents, the learned Single Judge ought to record a clear finding as to whether the confidential report pertaining to year 1994-95 in the case of writ petitioner can be treated as 'advisory' or 'adverse' as such. After examination of the relevant documents, the learned Single Judge ought to record a clear finding as to whether the confidential report pertaining to year 1994-95 in the case of writ petitioner can be treated as 'advisory' or 'adverse' as such. Depending on the finding recorded in that behalf, the learned Single Judge may pass appropriate further directions, as may required in the matter, in accordance with law. 4. The restored writ petition be proceeded before the learned Single Judge as per its turn, under appropriate caption, after winter vacation. 5. The writ appeal is disposed of, accordingly.