Judgment Arindam Sinha, J. The petitioner’s case is that having qualified in the Civil Service Examination, 1983 he was appointed as a Group A junior scale officer in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), on 2nd February, 1985 as a member of 1984 batch. His sole batchmate Sri P.K. Agarwal was allowed to join the same post earlier on 21st August, 1984. One Sri A.K. Singh was the petitioner’s junior. In his service career the petitioner got successive promotions to higher posts. He was promoted to the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) post on 9th July, 1999. Having completed 5 (five) years of service from 9th July, 1999 in the JAG post, the petitioner in 2004 was entitled to be considered for promotion to the next higher post of DIG, RPF. He was considered by the Department Promotion Committee (DPC) in August, 2004 for such promotion. At that time a departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner for which he was not promoted to the post of DIG/RPF. The findings of the DPC in respect of the petitioner were kept in sealed cover as per procedure but on exoneration in the disciplinary proceeding, the sealed cover was opened on 14th October, 2005. He was still not promoted then as he was not found fit for promotion. The petitioner was given ad-hoc promotion to the post of DIG/RPF on 2nd November, 2006 and subsequently by order dated 10th June, 2008 he was given regular promotion to DIG/RPF. The petitioner filed the 1st Writ petition (W.P.No. 16175 (W) of 2008) impleading, inter alia, his junior officers as private respondent nos.7 to 13 who were given promotion to DIG post by order dated 19th August, 2004. He challenged order dated 8th January, 2007 refusing his promotion to DIG post and prayed for direction upon the respondent authorities to consider his promotion to DIG/RPF by including his name in the select list dated 19th August, 2004. It is the further case of the petitioner that during pendency of the 1st Writ petition the respondent authorities refixed his date of promotion to J.A. Grade from 9th July, 1999 to 1st July, 2002 vide Order dated 21st July 2009 without giving him opportunity of hearing which compelled him to file the 2nd Writ petition (W.P. No.13608 (W) of 2009) challenging the said order. During pendency of the said 2nd Writ petition the respondent authorities issued order dated 2nd August 2013 bringing back the petitioner’s date of promotion to J.A. Grade to 1st July, 1999. However, since by another order dated 2nd August, 2013 the petitioner’s date of promotion to DIG was changed to 7th January 2009, the consequential relief prayed for by the petitioner under prayer A (iv), in the 2nd Writ petition needs to be considered and adjudicated upon. The Railway Board Circular No.2002/SCC/3/1 dated 3rd June, 2002 laid down the procedure as to how the DPC will consider and select the eligible RPF Officer for promotion to Administrative Grades including the DIG post. Under that circular, selection is to be made with reference to the relevant Bench Mark prescribed for promotion to each grade. The prescribed Bench Mark for promotion to the DIG post is “Very Good” entry in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the officer considered. Clause 6 of that Circular provides that ACRs are the basic inputs for assessment to be made by the DPC regarding the eligibility of officers for promotion on the basis of their service records with particular reference to the five preceding years. Thus grading in ACR of every officer plays vital role in the matter of selection for promotion. For DIG promotion, an officer’s ACR grading for each of the preceding five years should be at least “Very Good”. In the case of the petitioner the DPC’s finding he is unfit for promotion to DIG post in 2004 indicates that his ACR gradings for 5 years preceding the year of 2004 did not meet the required bench-mark of “Very Good”. It appears, however, the respondent authorities never communicated to the petitioner any of his below bench mark ACR gradings. This is undisputed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt-Vs- Union of India reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 laid down that every entry in the ACR of a Public servant must be communicated to him whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good entry. In paragraph 41 it was further laid down that non-communication of entries in ACRs certainly has civil consequences because it may affect the chance of promotion and hence such non-communication is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In paragraph 41 it was further laid down that non-communication of entries in ACRs certainly has civil consequences because it may affect the chance of promotion and hence such non-communication is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In another subsequent judgment reported in (2009) 16 SCC page 146 (Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar-Vs- Union of India) in paragraph 8 thereof, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to Dev Dutt and held the entries in the ACR which are below the bench mark, if not communicated, cannot be taken into consideration for promotion to the higher grade by the DPC. In view of the aforesaid settled principle of law, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the petitioner’s case for promotion to DIG with effect from 19th August, 2004, be reviewed by the DPC in accordance with the judgments in Dev Dutt’s and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar’s cases by not taking into consideration un-communicated below benchmark ACRs of preceding five years of the petitioner. Since denial of promotion to DIG post to the petitioner in 2004 was made by considering below bench mark ACRs which were not communicated, the refusal Memo dated 8th January, 2007 is liable to be and is quashed. The order dated 2nd August, 2013 of the petitioner’s promotion to DIG/RPF post with effect from 7th January, 2009 will abide by the result of the review to be made by the DPC in terms of this order. The review is directed to be completed by 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order and the decision thereon shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. The writ petitions alongwith the connected applications stand disposed of. This court records its appreciation of the assistance rendered by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.