Judgment G.R. Udhwani, J. 1. The petitioner seeks following prayers in prayer Clause 9(B), (C) and (D) and by way of amendment 9(H): "9. (B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authorities that the remarks made by the Reviewing Officer for the period 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2004, 1-4-2004 to 31-3-2005 and 30-9-2005 to 31-3-2006 be struck down. (C) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authorities that the remarks for the period from 23-10-2000 to 31-3-2001 in Column No. 10 be considered as "outstanding". (D) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for the post of Deputy Secretary by striking down the remarks made by the Reviewing Officer for the period 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2004, 1-4-2004 to 31-3-2005 and 30-9-2005 to 31-3-2006 in the Annual Confidential Report and confirm the remarks of Reporting Officer and Departmental Promotion Committee be directed to consider the same. xxxx (H) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Gujarat Public Service Commission to consider the present applicant-petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary without taking into consideration the remarks for the year 2003-2004 to 2006-2007." The background in which the petition has been instituted can thus be stated: "2.1. The petitioner joined service as direct recruit as Section Officer on 22-12-1989 with the State of Gujarat. He was promoted to the post of Under Secretary on 17-5-2007. Being eligible for the post of Deputy Secretary by promotion, he aspired for it and during the pendency of the petition, as stated in additional affidavit by the petitioner, he has been promoted to the said post and thus a limited question of consequential benefits is required to be considered in the context of the facts denying the promotion to him earlier. 2.2. The post of Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary are Class-I post in the said hierarchy. The bench mark for promotion admittedly is the consideration of last 8 years confidential remarks amongst which at least for 5 years, the gradation should be "outstanding"/"very good". 2.3. Following were the remarks for the years specified in the table below mentioned: Sr. No. Year Grade By Reporting Officer 1 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2004 Outstanding 2 1-4-2004 to 31-3-2005 Outstanding 3 30-9-2005 to 31-3-2006 Outstanding 4 1-4-2006 to 19-11-2006 Outstanding 2.4. 2.3. Following were the remarks for the years specified in the table below mentioned: Sr. No. Year Grade By Reporting Officer 1 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2004 Outstanding 2 1-4-2004 to 31-3-2005 Outstanding 3 30-9-2005 to 31-3-2006 Outstanding 4 1-4-2006 to 19-11-2006 Outstanding 2.4. It is the case of the petitioner that the gradation made by Reporting Officer as appears in Column 3 above, was downgraded by Reviewing Officer without communicating to him the said down gradation and that such an act was in direct conflict with U.P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain, AIR 1996 SC 1661 . That this fact of down gradation came to his knowledge in pursuance to the information supplied to him on an application made on 25-1-2008 under R.T.I. Act. 2.5. That the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short the D.P.C.) was constituted in May, 2009 for considering the aspirants for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary and the petitioner was called for the purpose and ultimately along with other aspirants, he was recommended for an opinion to Gujarat Public Service Commission (for short 'G.P.S.C.'). 2. As is evident from the affidavit-in-reply filed by G.P.S.C. herein, it received the aforesaid proposal and by its communication dated 10-9-2009; Annexure-RI to the affidavit-in-reply, raised following issues: "1. For the period between 23-10-2000 and 31-3-2001, no remarks like "good" or "very good" were made by Reporting Officer or the Reviewing Authority (for short R.O. & R.A. respectively). 2. There is no clarification as to how the D.P.C., in absence of such remarks graded the petitioner as "very good". 3. Amongst three of various columns of C.R., "good", "very good" has been remarked and in the column relating to overall assessment "hard working" and "having matured thinking" has been stated, and therefore, the basis for D.P.C. grading the petitioner as "very good" and the recommendation of the Selection Committee must be clarified." 3. In reply to the said communication, the State by letter dated 25-9-2009 relied upon the Circular dated 6-3-2004 and clarified that the Selection Committee had recommended petitioner's promotion while relying upon the said Circular. It was further pointed out that in the C.R. for the year 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, R.O. graded the petitioner as "very good" or "outstanding" with which the R.A. had agreed. It was further pointed out that in the C.R. for the year 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, R.O. graded the petitioner as "very good" or "outstanding" with which the R.A. had agreed. It was also pointed out that without giving any reason in Part 4 of column No. 4 of the C.R., the petitioner was downgraded to "good" which action was not in conformity with the Circular dated 6-3-2004. It was pointed out, that thus, for the period stated in the said letter, the overall gradation of the petitioner was considered as "very good". In the said letter, reliance was also placed on Clause 16(2) of the letter of the General Administrative Department dated 20-7-2009 which provided that in absence of reasons for downgrading, the downgradation by R.A. should be ignored. It was stated that for the year 2003-2004, the said letter dated 20-7-2009 was taken into consideration. 4. As against that, the respondent No. 5 relied upon Circular dated 11-10-2006 which was issued after 6-3-2004 and came out with a reply that the Circular dated 6-3-2004 was inapplicable, and therefore, the overall assessment of the petitioner was not to be treated as "very good" or "outstanding". The said Circular dated 11-10-2006 produced at Annexure-R3 with the affidavit-in-reply of the respondent No. 5 refers to Circular dated 29-3-2005 in its Preamble in the context of the guidelines to be taken into consideration for the purpose of promotion to the post in question. Item No. 2(b)(4) of the Circular dated 29-10-2005 as narrated in the Circular dated 11-10-2006 envisages that overall assessment made in C.R. must be in conformity with other relevant columns and mere statements against column meant for "overall assessment" that the Officer is "very good" or "outstanding" in abstract would not be sufficient. 4.1. As per the Circular dated 11-10-2006, the guidelines for writing C.R. and reviewing the C.R., in terms of Item No. 2(b)(4) of the Circular dated 29-10-2005 was under consideration with the State Government, and that, as provided in the said circular, in the meanwhile for the purpose of enlisting the aspirants for promotion to Grade-II and higher post of Class-I, the eligibility or otherwise of Officers under consideration for promotion, the overall assessment made by R.A. as "outstanding", "very good" or "unfit" was be taken into consideration. 5. 5. According to the petitioner in Column No. 10 of the C.R. relating to the period between 23-10-2000 and 31-3-2001 being a period of five months and 9 days, R.O. graded him as "outstanding" which was accepted by R.A. without making any remarks in Column No. 4 thereof, but subsequently the word "outstanding" was scored out without any initials and other part of the remarks "hard working" and "matured thinking" were written. The petitioner has relied upon the Resolution dated 8-3-1969, indicating the manner of writing C.R. which provides that no scoring out or change in the C.R. be made except by specific order of the State Government. That such policy has been reiterated on 31-3-1989. 6. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was graded "outstanding" for the periods mentioned in the table referred in paragraph No. 2.3 of this judgment; whereas the R.A. without assigning any reasons downgraded the petitioner to "good" for the period between 1-4-2003 and 31-3-2005 and "very good" for the period between 1-4-2006 and 19-11-2006 which action of the R.A. is in direct conflict with U.P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain (supra). That the petitioner had no chance to make any representation against such downgradation in absence of communication of such down gradation to the petitioner, and that it was only in pursuances R.T.I, application, he learnt about the down gradation. Learned Counsel would contend that the circular dated 6-3-2004 obliges R.A-to assign reasons in the event of effecting change in the remarks made by R.O. in "annual Confidential Report". 6.1. Learned Counsel would argue that non-communication of the down-gradation for the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 to the petitioner has deprived the petitioner to make a representation at appropriate time and having learnt about such downgradation only in pursuance to an application under R.T.I. Act in the year 2008, the petition is filed. 6.2. It is also argued that the A.C.Rs. for the period between 23-10-2000 and 31-3-2001 in Column No. 10 against overall assessment initially was "outstanding" and subsequently, the vague remarks "hard working" and "having matured thinking" came to be substituted though the relevant circular approve the remarks like "outstanding", "very good", "good" or "unfit" only and thus no assessment of the petitioner could have been made on the basis of such vague remarks. Reliance has been placed upon Sukhdeo v. Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, 1996 (5) SCC 103 , in support of the aforesaid arguments. 6.3. It was also argued that in absence of initials acknowledging the alteration of remarks in the A.C.R., such alteration has no consequence and a mere oral statement of the Officer concerned made after 9 years of alteration, confirming such alteration is of no consequence. That such alterations violate G.R. dated 8-3-1969 reiterated in the G.R. dated 31-3-1989. It is argued by relying upon aforesaid resolution that alteration or obliteration, etc., of the remarks without specific orders of the Government is illegal. It is also argued that as per the aforesaid resolution, if at all inaccuracy was to be corrected, only option available to the concerned Officer was to refer the relevant A.C.R. back to the R.O. and that having not done for the period of almost 9 years, the oral statement of R.O. after such a long period, cannot affect the petitioner's rights to his detriment. It is argued that if such an action of the R.O. or R.A. is approved, it would be detrimental to the interest of the petitioner inasmuch as overall grading would come down to "good", instead of "outstanding" rendering the petitioner ineligible for promotion. 6.4. Learned Counsel would argue that the fact that vague non-initialled remarks existed on the record is not palatable because after the R.O. writes remarks, the file travels to the R.A. who is under an obligation to comply with various circulars and resolutions referred to hereinabove and in such an eventuality, it is his duty to return the file to R.O. so as to replace it with those contemplated in the relevant G.R./Circulars. According to the learned Counsel, no such remarks existed in the A.C.R., but such remarks seem to have been entered recently when application under R.T.I, was made so as to downgrade and render the petitioner ineligible to the next higher post. 6.5. Learned Counsel would contend that G.P.S.C. also ought to have ignored the gradation made by R.O. for the aforesaid period and ought to have relied upon the gradation made by R.A. in view of the policy of the State emerging from various G.Rs., and circular as discussed in greater detail. 6.5. Learned Counsel would contend that G.P.S.C. also ought to have ignored the gradation made by R.O. for the aforesaid period and ought to have relied upon the gradation made by R.A. in view of the policy of the State emerging from various G.Rs., and circular as discussed in greater detail. It is argued that it is erroneous for G.P.S.C. to have relied upon Circular dated 11-10-2006, the said circular in no way supersedes the Circular dated 6-3-2004; nor is there any conflict regarding instructions in both the circulars. He submitted, that therefore, advice given by G.P.S.C. to the respondent-State needs to be ignored. It is argued that initially the Government accepted the recommendations of D.P.C. and it was only on account of erroneous interpretation of the relevant circular by G.P.S.C. that the State now takes a stand contrary to the earlier one. 7. Respondent No. 1 in the written submission submits that the advice of G.P.S.C. that the Circular dated 6-3-2004 was inapplicable and G.R. dated 11-10-2006 was applicable was accepted by the State and accordingly the case of the petitioner was evaluated on the basis of following remarks in the A.C.Rs.: Good Very Good Outstanding 2000-2001 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2001-2002 2002-2003 2006-2007 2007-2008 7.1. It is contended that no cause of action arose for filing the petition until 3-12-2009 when actually the promotion orders were issued. 7.2. It is argued that evaluation of A.C.R. of the petitioner by G.A.D. as well as D.P.C. is not merely based upon the contents thereof, but also on general guidelines issued by the Government from time to time on the subject of the writing of A.C.Rs. and in case reporting or review of the A.C.R. is not done properly with reference to such standing guidelines of the Government on the subject, D.P.C. would go by the general guidelines on the subject rather than going by the contents of the A.C.R. as such. 7.3. It is argued that question of communicating the dawn gradation of the overall assessment by R.O. to the petitioner does not arise in view of the existing standing guidelines obliging the communication of only adverse remarks to the person concerned. 7.4. 7.3. It is argued that question of communicating the dawn gradation of the overall assessment by R.O. to the petitioner does not arise in view of the existing standing guidelines obliging the communication of only adverse remarks to the person concerned. 7.4. Respondent No. 1 is not able to dispute in the written submission that the remarks for the period 23-10-2000 to 31-3-2001 was altered by scoring out a particular part in Column No. 10 thereof by R.O. and that he did not initial it. 1st respondent relies upon the letter dated 14-12-2009 of the men Reporting Officer explaining the above aspect. It is also argued that remarks like "hard working" and "having matured thinking'' is equivalent to the grading of "good" and nothing beyond that and that such information are consistently equated to "good" by all D.P. Cs. across the Board, and therefore, no different interpretation can be done in case of the petitioner. It is argued that G.R. of the year 2007 in respect of A.C.R. pertaining to 2000-2001 is inapplicable. 8. Learned Counsel for the 5th respondent has relied upon its affidavit-in-reply, the contents of which are discussed in greater detail hereinabove. The stand taken by respondent No. 5-G.P.S.C. is that the Circular dated 6-3-2004 was inapplicable and G.R. dated 11-10-2006 is the correct G.R. which was rightly applied to the petitioner's case. 9. Having considered the detailed arguments, pleadings and the documents on record, the petition must succeed to the extent stated, for the following reasons. 10. Undisputedly, the bench mark for promotion is last 8 years confidential remarks amongst whom at least for 5 years, the gradation should be either "outstanding" or "very good". Therefore, the remarks in A.C.R. has a significant bearing on the prospects of promotion of a person. It would, therefore, be incumbent for the employer to adhere to its policy in the matter of writing, correcting, downgrading and reviewing the remarks envisaged in its various documents including-the circulars and resolutions etc., so as to ensure the uniform approach in the matter of promotion of various contenders. 11. The Circulars dated 6-3-2004 and 20-6-2007 issued by the General Administrative Department of the State of Gujarat reiterate G.R. dated 8-3-1969 and 31-3-1989 in the matter of writing of A.C.Rs. Obviously therefore G.R. dated 8-3-1969 and 31-3-1989 will govern the field in respect of A.C.Rs. 11. The Circulars dated 6-3-2004 and 20-6-2007 issued by the General Administrative Department of the State of Gujarat reiterate G.R. dated 8-3-1969 and 31-3-1989 in the matter of writing of A.C.Rs. Obviously therefore G.R. dated 8-3-1969 and 31-3-1989 will govern the field in respect of A.C.Rs. written in the year 2000-2001 and therefore it is fallacious to contend that circulars reiterating the aforesaid resolutions are inapplicable. 12. The Circular dated 6-3-2004 reiterates that in the matter of writing A.C.Rs. only 4 phraseologies being: (1) outstanding, (2) very good, (3) good, and (4) unfit, must be used and use of other phrase is not permissible. Therefore, to contend that "hard working" and "having matured thinking" are permissible phrases and are equivalent to "good" and are not equivalent to "very good" or "outstanding" is fallacious. 12.1. When the Government policy requires use of specified phrases like "good", very good", "outstanding" or "unfit", only such phrases must be used in writing C.Rs. and only such phrases can be taken into account for assessing the suitability of the Government servant and vague remarks like "hard working" and "having matured thinking" would be impermissible though such phrases may be used in addition to the above stated phrases while praising the Government servant for his outstanding performance. 13. Furthermore, Clauses 5 and 7 of Circular dated 6-3-2004, prohibits the alteration by R.A. in the gradation unless supported by reasons. 13.1. The obvious purpose of this requirement is to impress upon transparency and maintain the Government record in the manner as would inspire confidence of all concerned. When the Government policy is framed with such an avowed purpose, no exception can be made to it, and it has to be complied with in its letter and spirit. As a note of caution, it is required to be observed that the reasons for alteration in the gradation may not be as elaborate as in the judgment of a Court, however, suffice it will be to clearly mention the basis of such alterations. 14. As a note of caution, it is required to be observed that the reasons for alteration in the gradation may not be as elaborate as in the judgment of a Court, however, suffice it will be to clearly mention the basis of such alterations. 14. At this stage, a beneficial reference to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, almost in similar circumstances, in U.P. Jal Nigam, ( AIR 1996 SC 1661 ) may be quoted: "What we say in this order shall not only cover the case of the first respondent but shall also regulate the system of recording annual confidential reports prevalent in the U.P. Jal Nigam the first petitioner herein. 2. The first respondent was downgraded at a certain point of time to which the Service Tribunal gave a correction. Before the High Court, the petitioners' plea was that downgrading entries in confidential reports cannot be termed as adverse entries so as to obligate the Nigam to communicate the same to the employee and attract a representation. This argument was turned down by the High Court, as in its view confidential reports, were assets of the employee, since they weigh to his advantage at the promotional and extensional stages of service. The High Court to justify its view has given an illustration that if an employee legitimately had earned an 'outstanding' report in a particular year which, in a succeeding one, and without his knowledge, is reduced to the level of 'satisfactory' without any communication to him, it would certainly be adverse and affect him at one or the other stage of his career. 3. We need to explain these observations of the High Court. The Nigam has rules, whereunder an adverse entry is required to be communicated to the employee concerned, but not downgrading of an entry. It has been urged on behalf of the Nigam that when me nature of the entry does not reflect any adverseness that is not required to be communicated. As we view the extreme illustration given by me High Court may reflect an adverse element compulsorily communicable, but if the graded entry is of going a step down, like falling from 'very good' to 'good' that may not ordinarily be an adverse entry since both are a positive grading. As we view the extreme illustration given by me High Court may reflect an adverse element compulsorily communicable, but if the graded entry is of going a step down, like falling from 'very good' to 'good' that may not ordinarily be an adverse entry since both are a positive grading. All what is required by the Authority recording confidentials in the situation is to record reasons for such downgrading on the personal file of the officer concerned, and inform him of the change in the form of an advice. If the variation warranted be not permissible, then the very purpose of writing Annual Confidential Reports would be frustrated. Having achieved an optimum level me employee on his part may slacken in his work, relaxing secure by his one-time achievement. This would be an undesirable situation. All the same, me sting of adverseness must, in all events, be not reflected in such variations, as otherwise may shall be communicated as such. It may be emphasised that even a positive confidential entry in a given case can perilously be adverse and to say that an adverse entry should always be qualitatively damaging may not be true. In the instant case, we have seen the service record of the first respondent. No reason for the change is mentioned. The downgrading is reflected by comparison. This cannot sustain. Having explained in this manner the case of the first respondent and the system that should prevail in the Jal Nigam, we do not find any difficulty in accepting the ultimate result arrived at by the High Court. 4. The Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed." (Emphasis supplied) 15. Two important aspects emerge from the aforesaid observations being: (1) for effecting change in the A.C.Rs. reasons must be recorded and (2) downgradation from one positive remark to another positive remark may not be ordinarily treated as adverse remarks, and therefore, may not be communicated, but where such positive entry appears to be perilously adverse, it needs to be communicated in the form of an advice. 16. As discussed earlier, the State policy envisaged in various circulars and G.Rs. obliges it to record the reasons for downgradation in case R.A. does not agree with R.O. Therefore, such unreasoned alteration being unacceptable as per the State policy cannot be sustained. 16. As discussed earlier, the State policy envisaged in various circulars and G.Rs. obliges it to record the reasons for downgradation in case R.A. does not agree with R.O. Therefore, such unreasoned alteration being unacceptable as per the State policy cannot be sustained. However, if the downgradation in the personal file of the employee is supported by reasons, the employee cannot claim a right of same being communicated to him, though the employer may inform him of the change in the form of advice. 17. In Sukhdeo (supra) where the Government servant was sought to be compulsorily retired on the basis of adverse remarks, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 6 observed thus: "6. It is settled law that when the Government resorts to compulsorily retire a Government servant, the entire record of service, particularly, in the last period of service required to be closely scrutinised and the power would be reasonably exercised. In State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher, JT 1996 (2) SC 569 at 578, Para 15, this Court has held that the Controlling Officer while writing confidential and character role report, he should be a superior officer higher above the cadres of the officer whose confidential reports are written. Such officer should show objectivity, impartiality and fair assessment without any prejudice whatsoever with highest sense of responsibility to inculcate in the officer's devotion to duty, honesty and integrity so as to improve excellence of the individual officer. Lest the officers get demoralised which would be deleterious to the efficacy and efficiency of public service. In that case, it was pointed out that confidential reports written and submitted by the Officer of the same cadre and adopted without any independent scrutiny and assessment by the committee was held to be illegal. In this case, the power exercised is illegal and it is not expected of from that high responsible officer who made the remarks. When an officer makes the remarks he must eschew of making vague remarks causing jeopardy to the service of the subordinate officer. He must bestow careful attention to collect all correct and truthful information and give necessary particulars when he seeks to make adverse remarks against the subordinate officer whose career, prospect and service were in jeopardy. In this case, the Controlling Officer has not used due diligence in making remarks. He must bestow careful attention to collect all correct and truthful information and give necessary particulars when he seeks to make adverse remarks against the subordinate officer whose career, prospect and service were in jeopardy. In this case, the Controlling Officer has not used due diligence in making remarks. It would be salutary that the Controlling Officer before writing adverse remarks would give prior sufficient opportunity in writing by informing him of the deficiency he noticed for improvement. In spite of the opportunity given if the officer/employee does not improve then it would be an obvious fact and would form material basis in support of the adverse remarks. It should also be mentioned that he had given prior opportunity in waiting for improvement and yet was not availed of so that it would form part of the record. The power exercised by the Controlling Officer is per se illegal. The Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter in dismissing the petition. The appellant is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The appeal is accordingly allowed with exemplary costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- recoverable by the State from the officer who made the remarks." (Emphasis supplied) 18. The aforesaid text in the judgment of the Apex Court points out importance of C.Rs. and the responsibility with which the Controlling Officer must write the C.Rs. It is to reiterate such responsibility of the Controlling Officer/R.O./R.A. that the State appears to have provided relevant binding guidelines or instructions to be followed by the Controlling Officer/Reporting Officer/Reviewing Authority in the matter of writing adverse remarks, in various resolutions and circulars as discussed in greater detail hereinabove. 19. It needs no emphasis that the Government record should be transparent enough to inspire public confidence in general and confidence of its servant in particular. Such transparency is emphasized in the G.Rs. dated 8-3-1969 and 31-3-1989 which debars the scoring out or change in the C.R. without specific orders of the State Government. The aforesaid G.R. also obliges to make initials alongside alteration or change made in A.C.Rs. 20. What follows from above discussion is that the alteration in C.Rs. of a Government servant must be supported by reasons and such alterations can only be with specific orders of the Government and when permitted by Government, it must contain initials alongside alteration or change made in A.C.Rs. 20. What follows from above discussion is that the alteration in C.Rs. of a Government servant must be supported by reasons and such alterations can only be with specific orders of the Government and when permitted by Government, it must contain initials alongside alteration or change made in A.C.Rs. Such reasons and initials would inspire the confidence of the Government servant in whose A.C.Rs. the change or variation is effected and the requirement of specific orders for such alterations from the Government would deter the controlling or other competent officer in effecting such alterations in A.C.Rs. of the Government servant at his whims and whimsicals. At the same time, the policies contained in various G.Rs. and Resolutions would enhance and promote transparency in Government record in absence of which the faith of public in general and Government servant adversely affected in particular, from the Government administration, would deplete and would result into heart-burning and frustration of the Government servant having direct effect on his efficiency. Violation of the aforesaid policies would open a room for abuse of powers by those who are in-charge of administration and would be fatal to public administration. Therefore, no exception against adhering to such policy can be countenanced. 21. In the instant case, as noticed in foregoing discussion, the alteration bereft initials were rightly ignored and the petitioner was rightly selected by D.P.C. and recommendation also was rightly made to G.P.S.C. However, subsequently, after the above referred communication dated 10-9-2009 by G.P.S.C. and after replying to the G.P.S.C. by letter dated 25-9-2009 wherein the aforesaid vague remarks "hard working" and "having matured thinking" was one of the matters of discussion, it was deemed appropriate to seek explanation from the Reporting Officer on the aspect of alteration made in A.C.R. in relation to the period between 23-10-2000 and 31-3-2001 and the reliance was placed upon his explanation dated 14-12-2009 explaining that he had effected alteration and had forgotten to put his initial alongside such alteration. Neither at the time of selection by D.P.C, nor at the time of recommendation to G.P.S.C, the exercise of seeking explanation from the then Reporting Officer was undertaken, and therefore, clearly such an action was a face-saving devise. Furthermore, it is rightly argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though during the period of 9 years, his personal file containing A.C.Rs. Furthermore, it is rightly argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though during the period of 9 years, his personal file containing A.C.Rs. must have changed various hands in due course, it is surprising that the alteration was never noticed by any of the officers at all and, no clarificatory explanation was sought from the then Reporting Officer during the period of nine years of the date of making of such alteration. 22. Apart from the fact as to whether the Reporting Officer would recollect his act of scoring out remarks, after a period of 9 years, such an explanation has come in at the crucial stage of the career of the Government servant when he fell under the zone of consideration and was in fact considered and recommended for promotion as indicated above. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, in the opinion of this Court, alteration in A.C.R. bereft initials of its author cannot be sustained and the original remarks made by R.O. are required to be given due weightage in view of the Circular dated 6-3-2004. 23. The reply to the queries raised by 5th respondent in its letter dated 10-9-2009 lay in the circulars dated 6-3-2004 and 20-7-2009, according to which unreasoned downgradation was required to be ignored. The 5th respondent, however, misdirected itself to the Circular dated 11-10-2006. As indicated above, Circular dated 11-10-2006 merely instructs that overall assessment of a Government servant reflected against relevant column must be in conformity with the assessment made against other columns of the relevant A.C.R. form. In other words, the remarks against the column meant for overall assessment in abstract or in ignorance of other remarks could not be countenanced as per the said circular. The overall assessment must show the overall assessment in its letter and spirit and must reflect the assessment of all the remarks made in A.C.R. and remarks against the column of overall assessment is made without taking into consideration the remarks elsewhere in the A.C.R. form, cannot be countenanced as per the circular afore-stated. Thus, the Circular merely guides the Reporting Officer as to the manner in which the overall assessment should be made. It is rightly argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Circular does not obliterate or supersede the Circular dated 6-3-2004. In fact, both the circulars reiterate the guidelines for writing A.C.Rs. Thus, the Circular merely guides the Reporting Officer as to the manner in which the overall assessment should be made. It is rightly argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Circular does not obliterate or supersede the Circular dated 6-3-2004. In fact, both the circulars reiterate the guidelines for writing A.C.Rs. and the circular dated 6-3-2004 goes a step further and emphasizes the fact that the alteration in A.C.Rs. bereft reasons would not be acceptable. 24. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds substance in the petition. The petition is, therefore, required to be allowed; accordingly it is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for the post of Deputy Secretary on the basis of the remarks made in the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner by Reporting Officer for the period between 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2004, 1-4-2004 to 31-3-2005 and 30-9-2005 to 31-3-2006. The respondents are further directed to consider the petitioner as "outstanding" for the period between 23-10-2000 and 31-3-2001 on the basis of the remarks made by Reporting Officer pre-alteration. As a consequence, the respondents shall be obliged to consider the petitioner's case for promotion in terms of findings rendered in Para 25 of this judgment. The said exercise shall be done preferably within the period of six weeks from the date of service of writ of this Court, but not later than 10th September, 2015. However, on the principle of "no work no pay", no monetary benefit should ensue to the petitioner, but he shall be entitled to other non-monetary benefits from the deemed date of promotion. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Direct Service is permitted. Petition Allowed.