ORDER : Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. 1. Aggrieved of the orders dated 26th September, 2012 (Annexure-2) and 15th October, 2013 (Annexure-11), the petitioner has instituted the writ proceedings, praying for the following reliefs: "(i) expunge the remarks recorded in the APA Report for the year 2011-12 and further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.9.12 (Annex.2) and 15.10.2013 (Annex.11) and the respondents be directed to provide all consequential benefits to the petitioner. (ii) any prejudicial order to the interest of the petitioner, if passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the same may kindly be taken on record and be quashed and set aside; (iii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction, deemed just and proper in the interest of justice may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and he be awarded exemplary costs of the writ petition. (iv) Cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 2. Briefly, the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are that the petitioner entered the service with the respondent-State as 'Forester' on 22nd December, 1986. While, he was posted at Range Patan, District Sikar in the year 2001, the respondent No. 5-Deputy Conservator of Forest (Mr. Mani Ram Poonia), on account of personal bias and mala-fide, withheld the salary of the petitioner for the month of April, 2001. A charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958'), was also served on the petitioner. The petitioner addressed a detailed representation to the Director cum Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jodhpur, detailing out the facts and the personal bias of respondent No. 5. Having received no response to the representation, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. As a consequence, the respondents were directed by the Tribunal to pay the due salary of the petitioner. The respondent No. 5, while acting as an Accepting Officer, with reference to Annual Confidential Reports of year 2011-12, made an adverse remark including that of 'doubtful integrity', though the Reporting and the Reviewing Officer assessed and reported the petitioner as "VERY GOOD". The respondent No. 5, while acting as an Accepting Officer, with reference to Annual Confidential Reports of year 2011-12, made an adverse remark including that of 'doubtful integrity', though the Reporting and the Reviewing Officer assessed and reported the petitioner as "VERY GOOD". The representation addressed to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Sikar, for deletion of the adverse entries in the ACRs of the year 2011-12; was declined and the entries were maintained. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anoop Dhand, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, asserted that the adverse entries made by respondent No. 5, are on account of mala-fide and personal bias which is apparent on the face of record. According to the learned counsel, respondent No. 5 who has been impleaded as party eo-nominee to the writ proceedings was jealous and with oblique motives in order to spoil the service record and career of the petitioner acted maliciously against the petitioner while making the adverse entry with reference to an incident which was enquired into and on an enquiry a negative finding was arrived at for any kind of involvement of the petitioner as would be evident from enquiry report dated 11th June, 2012, wherein the allegations against the petitioner were found baseless and only on the basis of apprehension. 4. Furthermore, the enquiry conducted by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Neem-ka-thana, District Sikar, dated 11th June, 2012, attained finality and has not been questioned which happens to be the basis of adverse entries. Thus, the adverse remarks made by respondent No. 5, are without any basis and factual foundation rather contrary to the findings arrived at, into the allegations, on an enquiry. 5. Learned counsel would further submit that respondent No. 5, Mr. Mani Ram Poonia, despite his impleadment as party eo-nominee, to the writ proceedings, even after service of notice of the writ petition, has not filed any counter affidavit refuting the allegations made in the writ application, and therefore, the allegations must be treated as proved. It is further contended that the allegations of mala-fide, also stand proved in view of the opinion expressed by the Conservator of Forest, in his Communication dated 20th August, 2012, wherein he advised for release of salary of the petitioner for the Month of April, 2001, along with bills for Travelling Allowance forthwith. 6. It is further contended that the allegations of mala-fide, also stand proved in view of the opinion expressed by the Conservator of Forest, in his Communication dated 20th August, 2012, wherein he advised for release of salary of the petitioner for the Month of April, 2001, along with bills for Travelling Allowance forthwith. 6. Referring to order dated 7th May, 2015, on review applications preferred by the petitioner while assailing the legality and validity of the penalty imposed as a consequence of proceedings under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958; learned counsel would submit that His Excellency, the Governor of Rajasthan, on a consideration of the totality of facts, circumstances and materials on record, the penalty of stoppage of two grade increments without cumulative effect and, in another case the penalty of censure; were quashed and set aside. Thus, the fact that the petitioner was proceeded with the departmental enquiries on account of mala-fide and oblique reasons, is a proved fact apparent on the face of record. 7. The representation against the adverse entries was to be dealt with and decided in accordance with the procedure, by the authority, as detailed out in the circular dated 17th September, 2013 (Annexure-19), but the representation was not decided by the authority as indicated in the circular. 8. Learned counsel has further asserted that the leave applied for by the petitioner was already sanctioned, as would be reflected from the office order dated 7th February, 2012 (Annexure-5). Therefore, the pretext on which the enquiry proceedings were initiated and the basis for making an adverse remark in the ACRs of 2011-12, never existed. 9. Referring to the instructions titled as "Rajasthan Civil Services (Performance Appraisal Reports) Instructions, 2008" learned counsel urged that entry remarks in the description like "Doubtful Character" and/or "complaints received about his taking illegal gratification" is not permissible. Further, the entries are to be based on established facts and not on mere suspicion. Contradictory facts, assessment, findings, etc. are to be avoided while reporting/reviewing/accepting the Performance Appraisal Report (PAR). 10. Further, the entries are to be based on established facts and not on mere suspicion. Contradictory facts, assessment, findings, etc. are to be avoided while reporting/reviewing/accepting the Performance Appraisal Report (PAR). 10. Relying upon the instructions of 1976, learned counsel further pointed out that column No. 8 of the Instructions of 1976, prescribed procedure for filling up the Column relating to Integrity, which specifically mandates to fill up the column relating to integrity in the manner provided thereunder, which contemplated that Supervisory Officer(s) should maintain a confidential diary in which, instances which create suspicion about the integrity of the subordinate should be noted from time to time and action to verify the truth of such suspicious acts should be taken expeditiously by making confidential enquiries departmentally or by referring the matter to the Anti-Corruption Department. At the time of recording the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs), this diary should be consulted and the material in it be utilized for filling up the column about integrity. Learned counsel also emphasized the responsibility of the Reporting Officer and the General principles regarding communication of adverse remarks for which a detail procedure is provided under the Instructions. 11. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Daljit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab & Others, Civil Appeal No. 6532/2015, decided on 21st August, 2015, Ashok Kr. Kulshrestha v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 WLC (Raj.) UC 651, Rai Singh Bissu v. The State of Rajasthan & Another, 2008 WLC (Raj.) UC 467 and a batch of writ applications, decided on 22nd May, 2015, lead case being Vimal Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan & Others, Civil Writ Petition No. 7215/2010. 12. During the course of arguments, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court on the second stay application, preferred by the petitioner, made an order to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion while the DPC was convened on 4th June, 2014. It is further contended that the case of the petitioner was considered but the result has been kept in sealed cover. 13. In response to the notice of the writ application, the State-respondents have filed their counter affidavit as well as amended reply. 14. Mr. It is further contended that the case of the petitioner was considered but the result has been kept in sealed cover. 13. In response to the notice of the writ application, the State-respondents have filed their counter affidavit as well as amended reply. 14. Mr. Shiv Singh, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit asserted that the allegations of mala-fide are absolutely without any substance and factual foundation for the same respondent No. 5 (Mr. Mani Ram Poonia) in the ACRs for the year 2001-2002 made a remark as "GOOD" agreeing with the comments of reporting officer as would be reflected from ACR of the relevant year which has been placed on record as Annexure R/1. 15. Learned counsel made an effort to justify the action in making of adverse entry but could not support his submissions on the basis of factual foundation and in absence of any counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 5, who has been impleaded as a party respondent eo-nominee to the writ proceedings. 16. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar. 17. Indisputably, a glance of the communication dated 20th August, 2002, placed on record as Annexure-13, by the Conservator of Forest, addressed to the Section Officer, Department of Forest, Secretariat, Jaipur, would reveal the partial and jealous attitude of respondent No. 5-Mr. Mani Ram Poonia and a finding to that effect has been specifically recorded. This fact is also corroborated from the enquiry report dated 11th June, 2012 (Annexure-8), conducted to enquire into the allegations of role of the petitioner with reference to construction of a way measuring about half a kilometre by the then Sarpanch, in the forest land, for the purpose of illegal mining in the forest area, wherein the petitioner has been exonerated. 18. The adverse entries in the ACR for the year 2011-12 recorded by the Respondent No. 5, stating the petitioner to be of 'doubtful character', though he was assessed as "Very Good" by the reporting and reviewing officer; were communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner in response submitted a detailed representation detailing out all the material facts and particulars, as would be evident from the document Annexure-3, available on record. The petitioner in response submitted a detailed representation detailing out all the material facts and particulars, as would be evident from the document Annexure-3, available on record. However, the representation was declined by a non-speaking order dated 15th October, 2013. The petitioner registered maximum cases against the delinquent persons and collected maximum revenue for the Department as would be evident from the details enclosed with the writ application through document Annexure-4, indicating recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,15,150/-. Furthermore, communication dated 7th February, 2012 (Annexure-5), would reveal that leave was sanctioned to the petitioner with effect from 19th September, 2011 to 14th October, 2011 and 17th September, 2011 to 18th September, 2011. So also for 15th and 16th of October, 2011. The petitioner also registered complaints before the jurisdictional Court for offence under Section 32, 33, 41 and 42 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953; as would be evident from Annexure-6 and Annexure-7. 19. A glance of the instructions of 2008 detailing out the objective of the 'Performance Appraisal Reports' (PAR) and the procedure for assessment provided therein, would reveal the PAR is an important document in order to assess the performance on the basis of full qualities, trades, strengths and weaknesses of the employees, while considering their placement at posts where their services can be utilized most fruitfully. Under clause 14 of the instructions; 'General Instructions' have been provided for writing of PARs, which reads thus: "14. General Instructions for writing PARs. (1) Remarks like "Doubtful Character", "complaints received about his taking illegal gratification" are not permissible. Entries should be based on established facts and not on mere suspicion. Contradictory facts, assessment, findings, etc. should be avoided while reporting/reviewing/accepting the PAR. Moreover, premature facts events and circumstances should not be mentioned in PAR. (2) The authority writing the report should ensure that it is competent to write the PAR. It should especially check the period under report and satisfy itself that it was certainly the competent reporting/reviewing/accepting authority for the concerned person for the period under report. (3) It should be ensured that exact period and not just the year of report has been mentioned by the person reported upon at the appropriate place. (4) The name of the reporting officer, the reviewing authority and the accepting authority should be clearly indicated in block letters with respective designations after their signatures. (3) It should be ensured that exact period and not just the year of report has been mentioned by the person reported upon at the appropriate place. (4) The name of the reporting officer, the reviewing authority and the accepting authority should be clearly indicated in block letters with respective designations after their signatures. The designation mentioned should be the one pertaining to the period of the report and not the designation, while writing the PAR. (5) The time schedule given in the annexure should be followed for writing the performance appraisal report. If the person reported upon does not submit the PAR from after duly completing its first part within the period prescribed for the purpose the reporting officer shall write the report in a new form without the self-assessment and submit the PAR to the reviewing authority for further necessary action. After recording the PAR, it should be immediately sent to the next higher authority or the cadre controlling authority, as the case may be, as per the prescribed channels. (6) A government servant is not entitled to any personal hearing at the time of drawal of PAR. However, he will have an opportunity to make a representation against adverse entries communicated to him. (7) The reports should be written in ink/ball pen. They may be typed, in which case the official (reported upon/reporting/reviewing/accepting) must record a certificate in his own hand to the effect that the report has been typed out by himself." 20. A glance of the instructions, as extracted above, would reveal that remarks like "Doubtful Character", complaints received about his taking "illegal gratification", are not permissible. Such entries should be based on established facts and not on mere suspicion. Contradictory facts, assessment, findings etc., should be avoided while reporting/ reviewing/accepting the PAR. It is further contemplated that exact period and not just the year of report has been mentioned by the person reported upon at the appropriate place. From the materials available on record it is evident that the very basis and factual foundation of the remarks of "Doubtful Character", is belied by the materials available on record to the contrary. It is further contemplated that exact period and not just the year of report has been mentioned by the person reported upon at the appropriate place. From the materials available on record it is evident that the very basis and factual foundation of the remarks of "Doubtful Character", is belied by the materials available on record to the contrary. Furthermore, the procedure contemplating maintenance of a confidential diary in which instances which creates suspicion about the integrity of the subordinate should be noted from time to time and action to verify the truth of such suspicion should be taken extremely seriously by making confidential enquiries departmentally or by referring the matter to Anti-Corruption Department; has not been followed and the reasons appears to be obvious (mala-fide). The factual matrix and materials available on record with reference to the year 2011-12, have been ignored while making adverse entries in the PAR of the petitioner. 21. In the case of All Kerala Online Lottery Dealers Association v. State of Kerala and Others, (2016) 2 SCC 161 , 395, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: "27. This flows from the general principle applicable to "consequential orders". Once the basis of a proceeding is gone, may be at a later point of time by order of a superior authority, any intermediate action taken in the meantime- like the recommendation of the State and by the UPSC and the action taken thereon-would fall to the ground. This principle of consequential orders which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders. In other words, where an order is passed by an authority and its validity is being reconsidered by a superior authority (like the Governor in this case) and if before the superior authority has given its decision, some further action has been taken on the basis of the initial order of the primary authority, then such further action will fall to the ground the moment the superior authority has set aside the primary order." 22. In the case of Rai Singh Bissu v. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2008) WLC 467; a Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, at Jodhpur, relying upon the opinion in the case of Badrinath (supra), held thus: "3. Vide Annex. In the case of Rai Singh Bissu v. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2008) WLC 467; a Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, at Jodhpur, relying upon the opinion in the case of Badrinath (supra), held thus: "3. Vide Annex. R/4 dated 30th March, 2001, the petitioner appellant has been exonerated from the charges finding that no case for dereliction of duty or negligence or misconduct is made out. In the light of aforesaid finding of the Disciplinary Authority, in connection with the alleged act and omission of the petitioner-appellant, foundation of adverse ACR of the year 1991 ceased to exist. Consequently, the adverse entry for the year 1991 deserves to be expunged. 4. Reference in this connection be made to Badrinath v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, (2000) 4 SCT 832 wherein the Court approved the Central Government's analysis that where adverse remarks are closely linked with the Disciplinary Case which is dropped, the adverse remarks based thereon have no legs to stand on. Present case is one step ahead as the subject matter of adverse remarks were made subject to Departmental Enquiry and the officer was exonerated." 23. In the case of Daljit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab, (2015) 9 SCC 680 at page 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that non-filing of written statement by Respondent traversing the allegations of mala-fide against him proves the mala-fide intention on part of Respondent. 24. The petitioner while placing on record the circular dated 17th September, 2013, emphatically asserted that the representation of the petitioner against the adverse remarks in the ACR ought to have been decided by the Minister of the concerned department, but the matter was not referred to the Minister of the Department through the Principal Secretary of the Department. The representation has been decided, declining the same, without authority of law. The action while dealing with the representation of the petitioner is without jurisdiction and contrary to the mandate of circular dated 17th September, 2013 (Annexure-19). Since the impugned order dated 15th October, 2013 (Annexure-11), has been passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests, rather than the Minister of the Department of Forests through the Principal Secretary of the Department of Forests; therefore, the order under challenge is without jurisdiction. Since the impugned order dated 15th October, 2013 (Annexure-11), has been passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests, rather than the Minister of the Department of Forests through the Principal Secretary of the Department of Forests; therefore, the order under challenge is without jurisdiction. The averments made in the rejoinder along with the documents annexed thereto, have not been denied by the State-Respondents either by filing any additional affidavit by production of any documentary evidence/record to the contrary. 25. In the case of Union of India and others v. E.G. Nambudiri, 1991 (3) SCC 38 , under paragraph 10 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held thus: "10. There is no dispute that there is no rule or administrative order for recording reasons in rejecting a representation. In the absence of any statutory rule or statutory instructions requiring the competent authority to record reasons in rejecting a representation made by a Government servant against the adverse entries the competent authority is not under any obligation to record reason. But the competent authority has no licence to act arbitrarily, he must act in a fair and just manner. He is required to consider the questions raised by the Government servant and examine the same, in the light of the comments made by the officer awarding the adverse entries and the officer counter-signing the same. If the representation is rejected after its consideration in a fair and just manner, the order of rejection would not be rendered illegal merely on the ground of absence of reasons. In the absence of any statutory or administrative provision requiring the competent authority to record reasons or to communicate reasons, no exception can be taken to the order rejecting representation merely on the ground of absence of reasons. No order of an administrative authority communicating its decision is rendered illegal on the ground of absence of reasons ex facie and it is not open to the court to interfere with such orders merely on the ground of absence of any reasons. However, it does not mean that the administrative authority is at liberty to pass orders without there being any reasons for the same. In governmental functioning before any order is issued the matter is generally considered at various levels and the reasons and opinions are contained in the notes on the file. The reasons contained in the file enable the competent authority to formulate its opinion. In governmental functioning before any order is issued the matter is generally considered at various levels and the reasons and opinions are contained in the notes on the file. The reasons contained in the file enable the competent authority to formulate its opinion. If the order as communicated to the Government servant rejecting the representation does not contain any reasons, the order cannot be held to be bad in law. If such an order is challenged in a court of law it is always open to the competent authority to place the reasons before the Court which may have led to the rejection of the representation. It is always open to an administrative authority to produce evidence aliunde before the court to justify its action." 26. In the case of M.A. Rajasekhar v. State of Karnataka and Another, 1996 (10) SCC 369 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reiterating the settled position of law and the object of making adverse remarks while assessing the competence of an officer on merits and performance of an officer concerned so as to grade him to various categories as outstanding, very good, good, satisfactory and average etc., observed thus: "5. It was found that his integrity was not doubted and his work also in all those respects was found to be satisfactory. Under those circumstances, the remark that he "does not act dispassionately when faced with dilemma" must be pointed out with reference to specific instances in which he did not perform that duty satisfactorily so that he would have an opportunity to correct himself of the mistake. He should be given an opportunity in the cases where he did not work objectively or satisfactorily. Admittedly, no such opportunity was given. Even when he acted in dilemma and lacked objectivity, in such circumstances, he must be guided by the authority as to the manner in which he acted upon. Since this exercise has not been done by the respondents, it would be obvious that the above adverse remark was not consistent with law." 27. Admittedly, no such opportunity was given. Even when he acted in dilemma and lacked objectivity, in such circumstances, he must be guided by the authority as to the manner in which he acted upon. Since this exercise has not been done by the respondents, it would be obvious that the above adverse remark was not consistent with law." 27. The ACR of the petitioner for the year 2011-12, as recorded by the reporting, reviewing and accepting authority, reads thus:- ^^Jh lksuh ds v/khuLFk ou {ks= jSyk&glkeiqj] dkykdksVk ¼VksMk½] yknh dk ckl {ks= esa ts-ch-lh- ls dkQh yEcs jkLrs cuk;s tkdj voS/k [kuu gqvkA vf/kdkfj;ksa dh tkudkjh esa vkus ij ;|fi Jh lksuh us dsl ntZ fd;sA dkykdksVk ds izdj.k esa ckj&ckj funsZ'k nsus ds ckotwn vfHk;qDr dks fxjrkj ugha fd;k x;kA budh Hkwfedk lafnX/k jgh gSA Jh lksuh us ,-,u-vkj- yknh dk ckn vfxze dk;Z 50 gS] dk dk;Z iw.kZ ugha djok;kA mikftZr vodk'k vLohd`r djus ds ckotwn vodk'k ij pys x;sA Jh lksuh dh lR;fu"Bk lafnX/k gSA** 28. From a glance of the overall grading of the ACR of the petitioner, it is reflected that the observations made by the Reporting Authority with reference to all the column No. 1 to 5, were agreed upon by the Reviewing Authority. Column No. 2 of the ACR further reflects that general assessment of the petitioner was adjudged as "very good" and the petitioner was never served with any advisory or memo at any point of time in past to improve his performance. Adverse remarks made by the Accepting Authority downgrading the ACR with the remark of "doubtful character/integrity", was done without any notice to the petitioner with reference to the reasons for the proposed remarks. That apart, the very basis of the adverse remarks made by the Accepting Authority, stood obliterated in view of the enquiry report dated 11th June, 2012 (Annexure-8). In view of the above, the adverse remarks as made in the ACR of the petitioner, for the year 2011-12, by the Accepting Authority and communicated vide impugned order dated 26th September, 2012 (Annexure-2), cannot be sustained. Further, the representation of the petitioner, in response to the adverse entries communicated, declined vide order dated 15th October, 2013 (Annexure-11), is bad in the eyes of law for want of jurisdiction so also being a non-speaking order. Further, no documentary evidence/record was produced to justify the rejection of the representation. 29. Further, the representation of the petitioner, in response to the adverse entries communicated, declined vide order dated 15th October, 2013 (Annexure-11), is bad in the eyes of law for want of jurisdiction so also being a non-speaking order. Further, no documentary evidence/record was produced to justify the rejection of the representation. 29. From the pleadings of the parties and materials available on record, it is evident that there is no reference to any advisory or memos given to petitioner at any point of time in past to improve his performance. Remarks made by the accepting authority downgrading him contrary to the assessment made by the 'reporting officer' and 'reviewing authority', was done without any notice to the petitioner with reference to the reasons for the proposed remarks. More so, in the face of the fact that the very basis of the remark of 'doubtful integrity/character' was found to be false in the enquiry conducted. 30. On 4th June, 2014, the matter came before this Court on Second Stay application preferred on behalf of the petitioner. A copy was made available to the counsel for the State-respondents. However, neither any response was filed to the application nor any representation was available for the State-respondents. Since the Departmental Promotion Committee, was to be convened and the case of the petitioner was not placed before it for consideration, therefore, this Court made the following order: "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on second stay application. Learned counsel submits that the respondents are going to convene the DPC today at 2.00 Clock. A copy of the 2nd stay application was furnished to the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. N.K. Bhatt, A.G.C. On 28th May, 2014. Neither the counsel is present in Court to contest the application nor any reply to the application has been filed. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the DPC being convened today i.e., 04.06.2014. However, his result may be kept in sealed cover and should not be opened without permission of this Court." 31. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the DPC being convened today i.e., 04.06.2014. However, his result may be kept in sealed cover and should not be opened without permission of this Court." 31. From the singular facts and materials available on record it is evident that the petitioner has been deprived of his due owing to the adverse entries in the ACR for the year 2011-12 made by the accepting authority as communicated vide order dated 26th September, 2012 and for pendency of the departmental proceedings which ultimately resulted into exoneration of the petitioner from both the charge-sheets. 32. In the result, the writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned communication dated 26th September, 2012 (Annexure-2) and order declining the representation against adverse entries in ACR for the year 2011-12, dated 15th October, 2013 (Annexure-11); are hereby quashed and set aside. 33. The petitioner was considered for promotion pending the writ proceedings as would be evident from the order-sheet drawn on 4th June, 2014. However, his result was to be kept in sealed cover. 34. The respondents are directed to open the sealed cover and action be taken accordingly. 35. The directions aforesaid shall be complied with within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits which have been made available to the immediate junior to the petitioner on notional basis. 36. The writ application is allowed in the terms as indicated hereinabove with the cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) payable to the writ petitioner by the respondents.