Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1506 (GUJ)

Vinodkumar Vasantlal Nagvadia v. State of Gujarat

2016-07-27

ABHILASHA KUMARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Abhilasha Kumari, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has, inter-alia, prayed for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus or appropriate directions to the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Joint Director (Accounts) by ignoring the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2007-08, as the same were never communicated to the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that initially, the petitioner was directly appointed in the year 1982, on the post of Internal Audit Officer, Class-II. On October, 1987, thereafter, he was appointed as District Treasury Officer, Class-I by respondent No. 2 Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC). After about seventeen years of service, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Director (Accounts), Office of the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, in the year 2004. He was sent on deputation to the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) as Chief Account Officer and Financial Advisor in the year 2010. As per the case of the petitioner, the next promotional post from the post of Deputy Director (Accounts), is Joint Director (Accounts), though the pay-scale of both the posts is the same. The minimum requirement for the next higher post of Joint Director (Accounts) is three years' experience. The criterion for promotion to the post of Joint Director (Accounts) is merit-cum-seniority (Selectivity), as per the Gujarat Civil Services (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 2005 ("the Rules" for short). Up to October, 2005, the benchmark for promotion was the assessment as 'Good'. However, the Rules came to be amended by a Notification dated 29.10.2005, whereby the benchmark was enhanced to 'Very Good'. Pursuant to the aforesaid Notification, the Government Resolution dated 29.10.2005 came to be issued, by which the above criteria and procedure for promotion to a Class-I post, was published. 2.1 The petitioner came within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Joint Director (Accounts) in the year 2007-08, but the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was not convened in the said year. After the enhancement of the benchmark for promotion to 'Very Good', the candidate is required to obtain five 'Very Good' remarks in the ACR's of the last eight years, in order to be considered for promotion. After the enhancement of the benchmark for promotion to 'Very Good', the candidate is required to obtain five 'Very Good' remarks in the ACR's of the last eight years, in order to be considered for promotion. Thus, the remarks 'Good', though normally considered positive, have now been given a negative connotation and would have an adverse impact on the chances of promotion of a candidate. The case of the petitioner is that the remarks 'Good' ought to have been communicated to him so that he could have made a representation against them. However, no remarks have been communicated to the petitioner who, therefore, made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ("the RTI Act" for short), on 18.08.2010. In response thereto, the ACRs of the petitioner were supplied to him. The position of the ACRS of the petitioner from the years 2001 to 2009 is illustrated as below:- Year ACR Remarks 2001-02 Very Good 2002-03 Good 2003-04 Very Good 2004-05 Good 2005-06 Very Good Reporting Authority gave very Good. The Reviewing Authority agreed with the same and remarked Good Officer. 2006-07 Very Good 2007-08 First 8 months - Good 4 months Outstanding Surprisingly, first 8 months, remarks are typed instead of in own handwriting of Reporting Officer. 2008-09 Very Good 2.2 On receipt of the aforesaid remarks, the petitioner came to know, for the first time in September, 2010, that he had been given the remark 'Good' for the years 2002-03, 2004-05 and for the first eight months of 2007-08. However, these remarks were never communicated to him. The petitioner asserts that as per the law settled by the Supreme Court in this regard, the 'Good' remarks that have an adverse connotation could not have been considered by the DPC without being communicated to the petitioner within the prescribed time limit. On coming to know of the remarks, the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 30.10.2010 to respondent No. 1, which has not been decided, till date. On coming to know of the remarks, the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 30.10.2010 to respondent No. 1, which has not been decided, till date. Though the petitioner has been granted promotion to the post of Joint Director (Accounts) with effect from 10.04.2015, pursuant to the DPC convened on 10.04.2015 and, further, to the post of Director (Accounts) by an order dated 06.06.2016, the petitioner claims that the promotions to the said posts ought to have been made with effect from the deemed date of 28.03.2011 [for the post of Joint Director (Accounts)] and from 27.03.2015 [for the post of Director (Accounts)] respectively, with all consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner from the dates on which the respective DPC's met, the petitioner has approached this Court for the redressal of his grievance. 3. Mr. Hardik C. Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that it is now a settled position of law that adverse entries have to be communicated to the concerned employee within the stipulated period of time and if they are not so communicated, they cannot be taken into consideration by the DPC. 3.1 It is further submitted that whether an entry is adverse or not would depend on its actual impact on the career of the employee and not on its terminology; therefore, even a 'Good' entry can be adverse in the context of the eligibility of the employee for promotion, as has happened in the present case where, pursuant to the amendment in the Rules, the benchmark has been enhanced from 'Good' to 'Very Good'. 3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 in support of this submission. 3.3 It is further submitted that the judgment in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others (supra) has been confirmed by a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported in, (2013) 9 SCC 566 . It was, therefore, incumbent upon the respondents to have communicated the entries of 'Good' made in the ACR of the petitioner within the stipulated period of time. Union of India and others reported in, (2013) 9 SCC 566 . It was, therefore, incumbent upon the respondents to have communicated the entries of 'Good' made in the ACR of the petitioner within the stipulated period of time. It is only because of these entries that the petitioner has not been appointed to the post of Joint Director (Accounts) and, subsequently as Director (Accounts) from the date when the promotion fell due to him. The remarks 'Good' that earlier had a positive connotation now have a negative impact promotion to a Class-I post after the amendment in the Rules. It was, therefore, necessary for the respondents to have communicated the said remarks to the petitioner. As the remarks were never communicated, the DPC ought not to have considered the remarks while considering the ACR's of the petitioner. 3.4 In support of this submission, reliance is placed upon an another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Gosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and others reported in, (2009) 16 SCC 146 where this proposition of law has been laid down. 3.5 Another judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is in the case of Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal Vs. Chairman, U.P.S.C. & Ors. reported in AIR 2015 SC 3057 . It is submitted that directions similar to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the said judgment may be issued to the respondents. 4. The petition has been strongly opposed by Mr. Niraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, by submitting that pursuant to the amendment in the Rules, the Government Resolution dated 29.10.2005 was issued by the State Government whereby the benchmark for the promotion to a Class-I post is 'Outstanding' and 'Very Good'. Officers who are graded either as 'Good' or 'Unfit' would not be included in the select list of the eligible officers in the zone of consideration. 4.1 It is submitted that this Government Resolution was challenged by one Mr. S.K. Kadri before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 22734 of 2006, which petition came to be dismissed by an order dated 22.11.2006 passed by this Court (Coram: Ms. R.M. Doshit, as Her Ladyship then was). The petitioner of that petition filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 1629 of 2006 before the Division Bench, which was also dismissed by an order dated 28.06.2007. R.M. Doshit, as Her Ladyship then was). The petitioner of that petition filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 1629 of 2006 before the Division Bench, which was also dismissed by an order dated 28.06.2007. A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court, being Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2415 of 2008 titled S.K. Kadri Vs. State of Gujarat and others, which was dismissed on 31.03.2015. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that it is not provided in the said Government Resolution that the remarks 'Good' are required to be communicated to the concerned employee, therefore, the non-communication of such remarks to the petitioner cannot be held to be bad in law. 4.2 It is further submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that to be considered for promotion to a Class-I post, the candidate has to have five remarks of 'Very Good' in the last eight years. As the petitioner has obtained only four such remarks, he has rightly not been considered for promotion with effect from the date claimed by him. 5. Mr. Premal R. Joshi, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 GPSC, has submitted that the said respondent is a formal party and has no role to play in the petition. He has, however, adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 6. In the above factual background, this Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition and the documents annexed thereto. 7. It may be noted that on 18.04.2012, this Court (Coram: Mr. K.M. Thaker, J.) passed an order issuing Rule in the petition after considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Gosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and others (supra), interim relief was granted in the following terms: "In case if further promotion is effected or considered by respondent authority for the post in question, the remarks of 'good' which is not communicated to the petitioner, may not be considered provided the petitioner is otherwise eligible for the post of promotion in question." 8. Against this order, the State Government preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 1383 of 2012, which was dismissed by the Division Bench vide an order dated 06.11.2012. After the filing of the present petition, the petitioner has been promoted twice; once as Joint Director (Accounts) with effect from 10.04.2011 and then as Director (Accounts) by order dated 06.06.2016. Against this order, the State Government preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 1383 of 2012, which was dismissed by the Division Bench vide an order dated 06.11.2012. After the filing of the present petition, the petitioner has been promoted twice; once as Joint Director (Accounts) with effect from 10.04.2011 and then as Director (Accounts) by order dated 06.06.2016. The only issue now remaining for adjudication is regarding the deemed date of promotion to the said posts. It is the case of the petitioner that insofar as the promotion to the post of Joint Director (Accounts) is concerned, the DPC met on 28.03.2011 and, therefore, the petitioner ought to be given the deemed date of 28.03.2011. For the post of Director (Accounts), the DPC met on 27.03.2015, therefore, the benefit of promotion with consequential benefits ought to have been granted to the petitioner with effect from that date. Instead of giving promotion to the petitioner with effect from the above dates, the respondents, having negatively considered the remarks 'Good' in his ACR, have not promoted him from the dates on which such promotion was due, without communicating the said remarks to him. 9. It is not in dispute that the remarks 'Good' recorded in the ACR's of the petitioner from the years 2001 to 2009, were never communicated to him by the respondents. It is only after the filing of an application under the RTI Act that the petitioner was supplied the copies of his ACRs and came to know that the remarks 'Good' had been entered in his ACR for the years 2002-03, 2004-05 and the first eight months of 2007-08. Insofar as the year 2005-06 is concerned, initially, the Reporting Authority had assessed the petitioner as 'Very Good'. However, in spite of agreeing with the said report, the Reviewing Authority downgraded the assessment of the petitioner to a "Good Officer". It is interesting to note that the Reviewing Authority (Shri K.R. Kaushik, Retired IPS) has, by a communication dated 25.03.2011, addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department and GAD (Personnel), clearly stated that while writing the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2004-05, the grading of 'Good' had been given with an intention to enable the petitioner to become eligible for promotion. It is stated that at that point of time, the Government Notification dated 29.10.2005 had not been issued. It is stated that at that point of time, the Government Notification dated 29.10.2005 had not been issued. The remark 'Good' was given thinking it would not constitute an adverse remark. It is stated that the petitioner is deserving of 'Very Good' and can be given higher responsibilities. The Reviewing Officer has further stated that he was not aware of the Government Resolution and the remark 'Good' was inadvertently recorded in the ACR of the petitioner, though with a positive intention. Thus, it is clear from the said letter that the Reviewing Authority has clearly expressed his intention that the remark 'Good' made by him in the ACR's of the petitioner for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 was not intended to be adverse. The tone and tenor of the said communication indicates that, realizing the adverse impact on the petitioner, the Reviewing Officer considered it his moral duty to clarify that the inadvertent remark 'Good' was never intended to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate due. 10. Though the above communication clarifies the intention of the Reviewing Officer, the fact remains that the respondents were legally bound to communicate the remarks of 'Good' to the petitioner, considering that they have been negatively considered for his promotion, but the said remarks were never communicated. 11. With regard to the ACR of the year 2005-06, the Reviewing Authority has, while agreeing with the assessment of the Reporting Authority, downgraded the assessment of the petitioner from 'Very Good' to 'Good'. This, in itself, is not in consonance with the Circular of the State Government dated 06.03.2004, wherein it is stated in Clause-5, that if the Reviewing Authority disagrees with the assessment of the Reporting Authority by either upgrading or downgrading the officer being assessed, he has to record reasons in writing. Only then would his assessment be acceptable. The necessity of recording reasons by the Reviewing Authority in case of disagreement with the assessment of the Reporting Officer, has also been stipulated in Clause-5 of the Circular of the State Government dated 29.11.2006 and in Clause 3.3 of the Circular dated 20.06.2007. 12. The above-noted circulars came up for consideration by this Court while passing the judgment dated 21.07.2016, in Special Civil Application No. 18402 of 2011, wherein the absence of recording reasons by the Reviewing Authority while disagreeing with the assessment of the Reporting Authority was one of the issues. 12. The above-noted circulars came up for consideration by this Court while passing the judgment dated 21.07.2016, in Special Civil Application No. 18402 of 2011, wherein the absence of recording reasons by the Reviewing Authority while disagreeing with the assessment of the Reporting Authority was one of the issues. In the said judgment, this Court has held as below: "13. The power of the Reviewing Officer to alter the assessment made by the Reporting Officer cannot be questioned. However, there can be no two views regarding the fact that when such power is entrusted to an Authority, it has to be exercised in accordance with the instructions issued by the State Government for such exercise, in the manner it is intended to be exercised. In the present case, the Reviewing Officer has acted in contradiction to the instructions contained in the Government Circulars and, in doing so, has caused prejudice to the petitioner. There is no reply to this aspect in the affidavit-in-reply and neither has it been stated that any reasons have been given by the Reviewing Officer for downgrading the assessment of the Reporting Officer in the case of the petitioner." 13. Coming to the core question regarding the failure to communicate the 'Good' remarks in his ACR's to the petitioner, though such remarks have been considered negatively, it would be fruitful to advert to the judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon on behalf of the petitioner. 14. The case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others (supra), is extremely relevant in this regard and covers the case of the present petitioner. In the said judgment, it has been held as below: "9. In the present case the benchmark (i.e. the essential requirement) laid down by the authorities for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer was that the candidate should have 'very good' entry for the last five years. Thus in this situation the 'good' entry in fact is an adverse entry because it eliminates the candidate from being considered for promotion. Thus, nomenclature is not relevant, it is the effect which the entry is having which determines whether it is an adverse entry or not. It is thus the rigours of the entry which is important, not the phraseology. Thus, nomenclature is not relevant, it is the effect which the entry is having which determines whether it is an adverse entry or not. It is thus the rigours of the entry which is important, not the phraseology. The grant of a 'good' entry is of no satisfaction to the incumbent if it in fact makes him ineligible for promotion or has an adverse effect on his chances. 10. Hence, in our opinion, the 'good' entry should have been communicated to the appellant so as to enable him to make a representation praying that the said entry for the year 1993-94 should be upgraded from 'good' to 'very good'. Of course, after considering such a representation it was open to the authority-concerned to reject the representation and confirm the 'good' entry (though of course in a fair manner), but at least an opportunity of making such a representation should have been given to the appellant, and that would only have been possible had the appellant been communicated the 'good' entry, which was not done in this case. Hence, we are of the opinion that the non-communication of the 'good' entry was arbitrary and hence illegal, and the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent are distinguishable." (emphasis supplied) The Apex Court has stated further in the judgment that: "35. Thus natural justice has an expanding content and is not stagnant. It is therefore open to the Court to develop new principles of natural justice in appropriate cases. 36. In the present case, we are developing the principles of natural justice by holding that fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good) in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State service (except the military), must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its up gradation. This in our opinion is the correct legal position even though there may be no Rule/G.O. requiring communication of the entry, or even if there is a Rule/G.O. prohibiting it, because the principle of non-arbitrariness in State action as envisaged by Article14 of the Constitution in our opinion requires such communication. Article 14 will override all rules or government orders. 37. Article 14 will override all rules or government orders. 37. We further hold that when the entry is communicated to him the public servant should have a right to make a representation against the entry to the concerned authority, and the concerned authority must decide the representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable period. We also hold that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation will be summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. All this would be conducive to fairness and transparency in public administration, and would result in fairness to public servants. The State must be a model employer, and must act fairly towards its employees. Only then would good governance be possible." 15. The case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others (supra) was considered by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and others (supra), wherein it is held as under: "8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to work harder and achieve more that helps him in improving his work and give better results. Second and equally important, on being made aware of the entry in the ACR, the public servant may feel dissatisfied with the same. Communication of the entry enables him/her to make representation for up gradation of the remarks entered in the ACR. Third, communication of every entry in the ACR brings transparency in recording the remarks relating to a public servant and the system becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR - poor, fair, average, good or very good - must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period." (emphasis supplied) 16. In the case of Abhijit Gosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and others (supra), the Supreme Court has referred to the case of Dev Dutt Vs. We, accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR - poor, fair, average, good or very good - must be communicated to him/her within a reasonable period." (emphasis supplied) 16. In the case of Abhijit Gosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and others (supra), the Supreme Court has referred to the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others (supra), and has reiterated the principles of law regarding the non-communication of the adverse entries in the ACRs of a public servant, with the exception of the Armed Forces, and has held that it may have civil consequences as it affects his promotion and other benefits. This is what the Apex Court has stated: "8. Coming to the second aspect, that though the benchmark "very good" is required for being considered for promotion, admittedly the entry of "good" was not communicated to the appellant. The entry of "good" should have been communicated to him as he was having "very good" in the previous year. In those circumstances, in our opinion, non-communication of entries in the annual confidential report of a public servant whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the armed forces), it has civil consequences because it may affect his chances of promotion or getting such other benefits. Hence, such non-communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The same view has been reiterated in the above referred decision (Dev Dutt case, SCC p. 738, para 41) relied on by the appellant. Therefore, the entries "good" if at all granted to the appellant, the same should not have been taken into consideration for being considered for promotion to the higher grade. The respondent has no case that the appellant had ever been informed of the nature of the grading given to him." (emphasis supplied) 17. The judgment in the case of Abhijit Gosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and others (supra), has also been considered by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and others (supra). 18. In a recent judgment in the case of Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal Vs. Chairman, U.P.S.C. & Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court has held thus: "7. Union of India and others (supra), has also been considered by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and others (supra). 18. In a recent judgment in the case of Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal Vs. Chairman, U.P.S.C. & Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court has held thus: "7. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied that the impugned order passed by the High Court, deserves to be set aside, inasmuch as, the claim of the appellant could not be ignored by taking into consideration, un-communicated Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1995-1996, 1996-1997 and 1998-1999, wherein the appellant was assessed as "good". In the absence of the aforesaid entries, it is apparent, that the remaining entries of the appellant being "very good", he would be entitled to be considered fit for the promotion, to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, on the basis of the then prevailing DoPT guidelines, and the remaining valid Annual Confidential Reports." (emphasis supplied) 19. In light of the above principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court, it is clear that in the present case, though the benchmark 'Very Good' is required for being considered by the DPC for promotion to the next higher post, the entries of 'Good', due to which the petitioner was ignored for promotion, were never communicated to him at any point of time. In view of the amendment in the Rules and the enhancement of the benchmark from 'Good' to 'Very Good' for promotion to a Class-I post, the remark 'Good' would be considered as negative and adverse to the promotional chances of the petitioner. It is settled law that all remarks that are detrimental to the chances of promotion of an employee are required to be communicated to him, so that he is in a position to make a representation against them. The purpose of communicating the adverse entries to the concerned employee is to grant him an opportunity not only to represent but also apprise him of his assessment with a view to motivating him to improve his performance. In the case of State of Gujarat and Anr. Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah reported in (1991) 1 SCC 529, this Court held as below: "25. Purpose of adverse entries is primarily to forewarn the government servant to mend his ways and to improve his performance. In the case of State of Gujarat and Anr. Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah reported in (1991) 1 SCC 529, this Court held as below: "25. Purpose of adverse entries is primarily to forewarn the government servant to mend his ways and to improve his performance. That is why, it is required to communicate the adverse entries so that the government servant to whom the adverse entry is given, may have either opportunity to explain his conduct so as to show that the adverse entry was wholly uncalled for, or to silently brood over the matter and on being convinced that his previous conduct justified such an entry, to improve his performance. 20. Any remark having a negative or adverse connotation would reduce the chances of promotion of an employee, resulting in civil consequences, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Gosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and others (supra). The principles of natural justice would definitely be violated if there is a failure on the part of the respondents in communicating such remarks to the employee, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others (supra). 21. In the context of the present case, it has been submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that, in the Government Resolution dated 29.10.2005, there is no provision for the communication of the entry of 'Good' to the concerned employee. According to him, the fact that such entries were never communicated to the petitioner would not result in the infringement of any of his legal rights. It has further been submitted that for being considered for promotion, the employee ought to have five entries of 'Very Good' in the last eight years which the petitioner does not have. The above submissions advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader cannot hold good, in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the judgments quoted hereinabove. It has been reiterated consistently in the said judgments that even the entry 'Good' which has an adverse impact is required to be communicated to the concerned employee. Its non-communication would lead to the expunction of the said adverse entry. The law of the land would prevail over the Government Notification dated 29.10.2005 which may not provide for the communication of a 'Good' entry, that is negatively considered. Its non-communication would lead to the expunction of the said adverse entry. The law of the land would prevail over the Government Notification dated 29.10.2005 which may not provide for the communication of a 'Good' entry, that is negatively considered. Which entry is to be considered as an adverse one would depend on the benchmark that has been fixed by the authorities concerned. In the present case, the benchmark is 'Very Good', therefore, the entry 'Good' would have a negative impact and would have to be communicated to the petitioner. 22. Keeping in view the above settled position of law, this Court is of the view that the un-communicated entries assessing the petitioner as 'Good' for the years 2002-03, 2004-05 and the first eight months of 2007-08, cannot be taken into consideration and deserve to be expunged. 23. Insofar as the year 2005-06 is concerned, the Reporting Authority has assessed the performance of the petitioner as 'Very Good'. The Reviewing Authority, while agreeing with this assessment has downgraded the petitioner by describing him as a 'Good' Officer. Considering the benchmark of 'very Good', this remark would operate adversely to the petitioner and mar his chances of promotion. No reasons, as required, have been given by the Reviewing Authority for downgrading the assessment of the Reporting Authority even after agreeing with the same. The downgrading of the assessment of the petitioner by the Reviewing Officer as a 'Good Officer' from the 'Very Good' assessment made by the Reporting Authority is against the instructions of the State Government as contained in the Circulars dated 06.03.2004, 29.11.2006 and 20.06.2007. The ACRs of the petitioner from the years 2001 to 2008-09 contained five entries as 'Very Good' including the above. The petitioner is thus entitled to be considered for promotion on the basis of the entries of 'Very Good' in his ACR from the years 2001 to 2008-09. The 'Good' entries that have never been communicated to him cannot be considered. 24. In the above view of the matter, the respondents are directed not to consider the un-communicated entries of 'Good' in the ACR's of the petitioner for the period under consideration. Consequently, the petitioner is held entitled to claim the deemed date of promotion to the post of Joint Director (Accounts) with effect from 28.03.2011 and to the post of Director (Accounts) with effect from the date of 27.03.2015. Consequently, the petitioner is held entitled to claim the deemed date of promotion to the post of Joint Director (Accounts) with effect from 28.03.2011 and to the post of Director (Accounts) with effect from the date of 27.03.2015. The respondents shall consider the petitioner for promotion to the above said posts with effect from the said dates, as expeditiously as possible and without avoidable delay. In addition thereto, the petitioner shall be granted all the consequential benefits of promotion, whether financial, or otherwise. 25. The petition is allowed, in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. There shall be no orders as to costs.