JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.09.2013, issued by respondent no. 1, (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition), whereby Special Adverse Entry for reporting year 2012-13 was given to the petitioner. i-a) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.10.2013 (annexure no. 13 to the writ petition). ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring petitioner’s non selection by the D.P.C. for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner, on the basis of Special Adverse Entry given vide order dated 20.09.2013, as arbitrary and illegal. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to consider and promote the petitioner against available vacancy on the post of Deputy Commissioner, Rural Development, in view of his seniority as well as merit.” 2. Petitioner, who was initially recruited as a Senior Instructor in the Extension Training Centre of the Rural Development Department of Uttar Pradesh, came to be promoted as a Principal in 2010. The complaint of the petitioner, as raised in this writ petition, relates to the manner in which the Departmental Promotion Committee conducted selection for the post of Deputy Commissioner in relation to the year 2012-2013. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to 41 marks and this is how he has calculated the marks with reference to the entries in his ACR for the five years, which are relevant to the selection year. In this regard, we refer to and extract paragraph 8 of the writ petition alone: “8. That it may be stated that the service record of the petitioner is above board. He was charge sheeted and there is no adverse material against him which would have affected him for disqualification of promotion. As per the information received under Right to Information Act, his A.C.R. rating during relevant 05 years from reporting year 2008-09 to reporting year 2012-13 are as follows:- Sl. No. Reporting Year A.C.R. Rating Marks 1. 2008-09 Good 05 2. 2009-10 Very Good 08 3. 2010-11 Very Good 08 4. 2011-12 Outstanding 10 5. 2012-13 Outstanding 10 Total Marks 41 3. No. Reporting Year A.C.R. Rating Marks 1. 2008-09 Good 05 2. 2009-10 Very Good 08 3. 2010-11 Very Good 08 4. 2011-12 Outstanding 10 5. 2012-13 Outstanding 10 Total Marks 41 3. It is pointed out that, while the matter stood thus, a special adverse entry was awarded against the petitioner by the first respondent Secretary. It is also pointed out that the Departmental Promotion Committee was to meet on 12.09.2013, but it was adjourned to 25.09.2013. By order dated 20.09.2013, petitioner was given a special adverse entry by the first respondent. Petitioner filed representation dated 04.10.2013 and that came to be rejected by order dated 24.10.2013. Accordingly, petitioner amended the writ petition and challenged the order dated 24.10.2013 also. This is besides challenging the original special adverse entry dated 20.09.2013. 4. Pleadings have been exchanged. We have heard Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand; Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 & 4; and also Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant, who sought to intervene in the matter. 5. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, would make the following submissions before us: He would draw our attention to Annexure No. 10 and submit that, only on account of the special adverse entry, petitioner was not promoted. This is for the reason that, going by the marks, which the petitioner would have obtained, and being senior to respondent Nos. 3 & 4; though respondent Nos. 3 & 4 may have obtained 48 marks as claimed by them, still, under the Rules, petitioner is entitled to be promoted. In fact, he has a case that there was only one vacancy for that year and, only to unduly help respondent No. 3, the field of choice was enlarged. He would further submit that, at any rate, Secretary was not competent to issue order dated 20.09.2013. He points out that the Government Order provides for the method of issuing a special adverse entry. It is the law, he points out, that it can be issued only in rare circumstances. He would further submit that, at any rate, Secretary was not competent to issue order dated 20.09.2013. He points out that the Government Order provides for the method of issuing a special adverse entry. It is the law, he points out, that it can be issued only in rare circumstances. In this case, he points out, the petitioner was working at Haridwar; he was transferred within one year of his term to Haldwani; he filed a writ petition; according to him, he was unwell; he could not join; and the statements otherwise, which are stated in the order dated 20.09.2013, are not correct. At any rate, it is submitted that the petitioner filed representation dated 04.10.2013 and the Secretary has issued order dated 24.10.2013. Learned Senior Counsel points out that the said order, which is impugned, betrays non-application of mind and the manner of disposal of the same is bad in law. He points out that, in the said order, even more new matters are introduced, which were not there in the original order, by which the petitioner was given a special adverse entry. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, at any rate, the special adverse entry cannot be looked into in connection with the selection held in 2012-2013, as the order being dated 20.09.2013, it cannot relate to the year 2012-2013 and, instead, it will fall to be considered in case of selection for the year 2013-2014. In this regard, he drew our attention to the relevant Government Order. Petitioner has also a case that, while deciding the representation; the Secretary, who had made the special adverse entry, could not possibly had decided the representation. 6. Per contra, Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel, made available the files, as we had ordered. He would submit that the marks, which the petitioner, actually, obtained, are as follows: Øekad o”kZ vof/k Js.kh vad 1- 2012&2013 12 ekg fof’k”V izfrdwy izfof”V &5 2- 2011&2012 12 ekg mRÑ”V 10 3- 2010&2011 12 ekg vfr mÙke 8 4- 2009&2010 12 ekg vfr mÙke 8 5- 2008&2009 12 ekg vPNk 2 ;ksx 60 ekg 23 7. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the Government Secretary was, indeed, competent, as orders can be issued in the name of the Government by the Secretary. The case of the Government is that the special adverse entry was justified. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the Government Secretary was, indeed, competent, as orders can be issued in the name of the Government by the Secretary. The case of the Government is that the special adverse entry was justified. He would also submit that, at any rate, even if, instead of minus 5 marks for the year 2012-2013, petitioner is awarded 10 marks, he would only obtain 38 marks and, therefore, the petitioner cannot, at any rate, get any relief. 8. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 & 4, would submit that the petitioner has adverse entries in 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. They were got expunged by the petitioner by approaching the Secretary, about whom the contention is raised by the petitioner that he has no authority and, therefore, petitioner is estopped from contending so, runs the argument. He would also submit that, having obtained only 28 marks as things stand and if, instead of minus 5 marks, 10 marks are added for the year 2012-2013, petitioner would end up getting only 38 marks and respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have obtained 48 marks. It is submitted that, by not reaching the cut-off marks of 40, petitioner cannot claim promotion on the basis of his seniority alone. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra would also submit that, even if the special adverse entry is removed for the year 2012-2013, the question looms large as to what marks are to be awarded for the year 2012-2013. He would point out that the adverse entry was awarded by the Reporting Officer; but the Reviewing Officer, a person who was absconding, elevated the petitioner to ‘outstanding’. He submits that the said entry was made on a photostat copy and, in such circumstances, the entry for the year 2007-2008 would have to be looked into. 9. Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the applicant in the Intervention Application, would submit that he is only interested in pointing out that neither the petitioner, nor respondent Nos. 3 & 4, would be entitled for the post of Deputy Commissioner. His request is confined to pointing out that prayer no. 3 in the writ petition cannot be granted, as the petitioner may not be entitled and it is only available to Provincial Development Service Cadre. 10. 3 & 4, would be entitled for the post of Deputy Commissioner. His request is confined to pointing out that prayer no. 3 in the writ petition cannot be granted, as the petitioner may not be entitled and it is only available to Provincial Development Service Cadre. 10. We would think, in this case, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the basis of one aspect being answered against the petitioner. Petitioner approached this Court on the assumption that he would get 41 marks, including 10 marks for the year 2012-2013 on the basis of the entry, which he has claimed. He was overtaken by the imposition of a special adverse entry. The Departmental Promotion Committee has given minus 5 marks in terms of the Rules. Petitioner has a case that, in terms of the Rules, 5 marks cannot be deducted for that. We will proceed on the basis that the petitioner should not have been visited with minus 5 marks for the year 2012-2013. We will also proceed on the basis that the petitioner was entitled to 10 marks, as claimed by him. Even if that is so, petitioner would end up getting only 38 marks. There is difference of 3 marks in the calculation of the petitioner and the mark-sheet produced before us. For the year 2008-2009, petitioner has been given grading of ‘good’ and, for which, he has been awarded 2 marks; whereas, petitioner has proceeded on the basis that he is entitled to 5 marks. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra has a case that, actually, ‘achcha’ means ‘satisfactory’; whereas, petitioner has a case that ‘achcha’ must be treated as ‘good’. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra responds by pointing out that the said Government Order has been cancelled; but, we will proceed on the basis that it is ‘good’. Even for ‘good’, under the marks which are vouchsafed under the Government Order, petitioner would get only 2 marks. The resultant position will be, accepting all that the petitioner has submitted about the special adverse entry and vice afflicting it, petitioner would not succeed, as the petitioner would get only 38 marks as against 48 marks obtained by respondent Nos. 3 & 4. It will be a futile exercise to go into the legality of the imposition of the special adverse entry or the order rejecting the representation. 3 & 4. It will be a futile exercise to go into the legality of the imposition of the special adverse entry or the order rejecting the representation. On this basis, we are of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 11. The writ petition will stand dismissed. Intervention Application also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.