ORDER : Heard Mr. Shiva Mohan Jha, who appeared in person and Mr. B.K. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Letter No. F.N. 404-10/2009-Pers I dated 18.5.2009 issued by the Deputy General Manager Personnel whereby and whereunder, a decision has been taken that the petitioner's ACR for the year 2000-2001 has been found to be on merit and hence does not require any interference. A further prayer has been made for expunging the adverse entries in ACR for the year 2000-2001 as communicated vide letter dated 27.3.2002 and confirmed by the letter dated 22.2.2005. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the letter dated 25.5.2009 issued by the respondent no. 5 whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for grant of IDA Scale upgradation as per the criteria laid down in O.M. 400-61/2004/Pers 1/308 dated 18.1.2007 has been rejected. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was appointed initially as Engineering Supervisor in the Post and Telegraph Department of the Government of India and after his joining one year training was effected and the petitioner was finally appointed on 16.2.1967. The designation of Engineering Supervisor was subsequently changed to that of Junior Engineer and Junior Telecom Officer. The Post and Telegraph Department were subsequently split up into two separate Department of Post and Department of Telecommunication. The services of the petitioner was transferred to the Department of Telecommunication. Subsequently Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. was formed and the services of the petitioner was transferred to M.T.N.L. for a short period from 16.8.1998 to 27.11.1998. Thereafter on 1.10.2000 BSNL was formed as Government of India Enterprise and the services of the petitioner was transferred to BSNL w.e.f. 1.10.2000 and the petitioner continued to render service till 31.12.2005 on which date he superannuated and at the time of superannuation the petitioner was posted as Divisional Engineer, Commercial in the office of the General Manager, Telecommunication, Ranchi Telecom, District at Ranchi. The petitioner during his period of employment was assessed and the Annual Confidential Report sums up the assessment of the petitioner. The ACR of the petitioner for the year 2000-2001 contained adverse remarks which were communicated to the petitioner against which the petitioner submitted a representation and only the adverse remarks 6(2) was expunged and the rest remained. The petitioner during his period of employment was assessed and the Annual Confidential Report sums up the assessment of the petitioner. The ACR of the petitioner for the year 2000-2001 contained adverse remarks which were communicated to the petitioner against which the petitioner submitted a representation and only the adverse remarks 6(2) was expunged and the rest remained. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner for expunction of the remaining adverse remarks but the same was rejected. 4. The petitioner claims that he was entitled to upgradation of IDA Scale on completion of four years of service in the current IDA Scale but since the same was not granted, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4942 of 2008. This Court on 26.3.2009 directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case in support of his claim for grant of upgradation in accordance with the criteria laid down in the memorandum dated 18.1.2007 and to record their decision on the petitioner's claim by reasoned and speaking order. However, the claim of the petitioner was not considered and his claim for upgradation in the IDA Scale was rejected on the ground of adverse entries made in the ACR. 5. Mr. Shiva Mohan Jha, who appeared in person, has stated that the order was passed in the writ application by this Court on 26.3.2009 and the Screening Committee already met on 11.2.2009 which amounts to flouting of the order of this Court. It has also been submitted that the rejection of the claim for IDA Scale was not in terms of the direction of this Court. The petitioner further submits that he is entitled to the expunction of the adverse remarks in the ACR as there is no basis for inserting such remarks. 6. It has been stated that the petitioner cannot be deprived from getting IDA Scale as barring 2000-2001 the ACR of the petitioner is good and such adverse remarks cannot be a basis for rejection of his claim for IDA upgradation. The petitioner thus submits that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to grant consequential benefits to the petitioner after granting him IDA Scale. 7. Mr. B.K. Pathan learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has stated that the petitioner was awarded with adverse remarks and the then General Manager, Telecommunication, Ranchi had agreed with such adverse comments. 7. Mr. B.K. Pathan learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has stated that the petitioner was awarded with adverse remarks and the then General Manager, Telecommunication, Ranchi had agreed with such adverse comments. It has been stated that in the ACR of 1999-2000 adverse entries were made but the same was expunged by the then Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, Jharkhand. It has been stated that however the petitioner did not try and iron out the deficiencies which resulted in adverse entries made in his subsequent ACR. Learned counsel further submits that adverse entries in ACR will affect the claim for IDA Scale upgradation and that is precisely the reason the petitioner has not been granted IDA Scale upgradation. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ application. 8. After hearing the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and after going through the records, it appears that in the Annual Confidential Report of 2000-2001 several adverse entries were made which included not doing the job of inspecting PCOs and for defiance of instructions, bringing political pressure for cancellation of his transfer order to Simdega, intention to avoid additional responsibility, is not able to take decision of his own and being disrespectful towards his senior. On the representation of the petitioner the higher authorities had once again looked into the adverse entries made in the ACR of the petitioner but save and except entries no. 6(2) the other adverse entries remained untouched. The appellate authority has . properly appreciated the contention of the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be said that the adverse entries made in the ACR of the petitioner in the year 2000-2001 was without any basis. So far as the IDA Scale upgradation of the petitioner is concerned, in terms of the BSNL corporate office letter no. 400-61/2004/Pers 1/308 dated 18.1.2007 the performance rating in ACR of five years shall be taken into consideration for assessing fitness of eligibility of various grade which has been on the basis of the fitness criteria enumerated therein. The Screening Committee had found the petitioner unfit in IDA Scale upgradation since no executive can be given IDA Scale upgradation if adverse entries are there in the ACR for the intervening period. 9. The Screening Committee had found the petitioner unfit in IDA Scale upgradation since no executive can be given IDA Scale upgradation if adverse entries are there in the ACR for the intervening period. 9. The circumstances enumerated above, therefore, does not entitle the petitioner to any relief whatsoever and accordingly having found no merit in this writ application, the same is, hereby, dismissed.