JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 herein aggrieved by the entries in his ACRs represented vide his representation dated 6. 8. 2016. 2. It is also not in dispute that no decision on such representation came to be taken up till 24. 11. 2016. 3. It is yet again not in dispute that in the interregnum on 7. 10. 2016, DPC was held for the post of Joint Director (Agriculture), wherein the case of the respondent No. 1 was not considered on account of entries so existing in his ACRs, upon which there had been no decision taken till such date. 4. It was on this count that respondent No. 1 had approached the Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 5670 of 2016, wherein he had prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- "7(i) That the impugned notification dated 15. 10. 2016 at Annexure A-2 to the extent the respondents No,. 3 to 5 persons junior to the applicant have been promoted as Joint Director (Agriculture) may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the applicant may kindly be held entitled for promotion as Joint Director with effect from due date with all consequential benefits. (ii) That the memo dated 21. 7. 2016 at Annexure A-7 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. " 5. Learned Tribunal vide its order dated 5. 1. 2017 allowed the petition by directing petitioners herein to consider the case of respondent No. 1 for promotion to the post of Joint Director by holding review DPC by taking into consideration his ACRs for the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 as expeditiously as possible, but in any case not later than 31st January, 2017, when respondent No. 1 was otherwise due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. 6. It is again not in dispute that other than the adverse entries in the ACR''s other entries like "very good", "good", "average" had not been communicated to respondent No. 1 in terms of judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt Vs. 6. It is again not in dispute that other than the adverse entries in the ACR''s other entries like "very good", "good", "average" had not been communicated to respondent No. 1 in terms of judgment passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others , 2008 8 SCC 725 , wherein it was categorically laid down that gradings of all the ACRs, irrespective of whether they are "very good", "good", "average" are required to be communicated by the employer to the employee, so as to enable him to make a representation for improving his gradings. 7. Here, it would be apposite to refer relevant observations of judgment rendered by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt''s case supra, which reads thus:- "9. In the present case the bench mark (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 rigors 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. 13. 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. 13. In our opinion, every entry (and not merely a poor or adverse entry) relating to an employee under the State or an instrumentality of the State, whether in civil, judicial, police or other service (except the military) must be communicated to him, within a reasonable period, and it makes no difference whether there is a bench mark or not. Even if there is no bench mark, non-communication of an entry may adversely affect the employee''s chances of promotion (or getting some other benefit), because when comparative merit is being considered for promotion (or some other benefit) a person having a ''good'' or ''average'' or ''fair'' entry certainly has less chances of being selected than a person having a ''very good'' or ''outstanding'' entry. 14. In most services there is a gradation of entries, which is usually as follows: (i) Outstanding (ii) Very Good (iii) Good (iv) Average (v) Fair (vi) Poor A person getting any of the entries at items (ii) to (vi) should be communicated the entry so that he has an opportunity of making a representation praying for its upgradation, and such a representation must be decided fairly and within a reasonable period by the concerned authority. 15. If we hold that only ''poor'' entry is to be communicated, the consequences may be that persons getting ''fair'', ''average'', ''good'' or ''very good'' entries will not be able to represent for its upgradation, and this may subsequently adversely affect their chances of promotion (or get some other benefit). 16. In our opinion if the Office Memorandum dated 10/11. 09. 1987, is interpreted to mean that only adverse entries (i. e. ''poor'' entry) need to be communicated and not ''fair'', ''average'' or ''good'' entries, it would become arbitrary (and hence illegal) since it may adversely affect the incumbent''s chances of promotion, or get some other benefit. For example, if the bench mark is that an incumbent must have ''very good'' entries in the last five years, then if he has ''very good'' (or even ''outstanding'') entries for four years, a ''good'' entry for only one year may yet make him ineligible for promotion. For example, if the bench mark is that an incumbent must have ''very good'' entries in the last five years, then if he has ''very good'' (or even ''outstanding'') entries for four years, a ''good'' entry for only one year may yet make him ineligible for promotion. This ''good'' entry may be due to the personal pique of his superior, or because the superior asked him to do something wrong which the incumbent refused, or because the incumbent refused to do sycophancy of his superior, or because of caste or communal prejudice, or for some other extraneous consideration. 17. In our opinion, every entry in the A. C. R. of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair, average, good or very good entry. This is because non-communication of such an entry may adversely affect the employee in two ways: (1) Had the entry been communicated to him he would know about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to improve his work in future (2) He would have an opportunity of making a representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its upgradation. Hence noncommunication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution. 18. Thus it is not only when there is a bench mark but in all cases that an entry (whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good) must be communicated to a public servant, otherwise there is violation of the principle of fairness, which is the soul of natural justice. Even an outstanding entry should be communicated since that would boost the morale of the employee and make him work harder. 22. It may be mentioned that communication of entries and giving opportunity to represent against them is particularly important on higher posts which are in a pyramidical structure where often the principle of elimination is followed in selection for promotion, and even a single entry can destroy the career of an officer which has otherwise been outstanding throughout. 22. It may be mentioned that communication of entries and giving opportunity to represent against them is particularly important on higher posts which are in a pyramidical structure where often the principle of elimination is followed in selection for promotion, and even a single entry can destroy the career of an officer which has otherwise been outstanding throughout. This often results in grave injustice and heart-burning, and may shatter the morale of many good officers who are superseded due to this arbitrariness, while officers of inferior merit may be promoted. 23. In the present case, the action of the respondents in not communicating the ''good'' entry for the year 1993-94 to the appellant is in our opinion arbitrary and violative of natural justice, because in substance the ''good'' entry operates as an adverse entry (for the reason given above). 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. 38. We, however, make it clear that the above directions will not apply to military officers because the position for them is different as clarified by this Court in Union of India vs. Major Bahadur Singh , 2006 1 SCC 368 . But they will apply to employees of statutory authorities, public sector corporations and other instrumentalities of the State (in addition to Government servants). " 8. But they will apply to employees of statutory authorities, public sector corporations and other instrumentalities of the State (in addition to Government servants). " 8. The judgment in Dev Dutt''s case was delivered by two Judges of Hon''ble Supreme Court and the same, in turn, was thereafter affirmed by three Hon''ble Judges in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India and others , 2009 16 SCC 146 and thereafter, by three Hon''ble Judges in Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India and others , 2013 9 SCC 566 . 9. Similar reiteration of law can be found in subsequent judgment delivered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal vs. Chairman, Union Public Service Commission and others , 2015 14 SCC 427 . 10. In view of the settled legal position, respondent No. 1 could not have been denied promotion without firstly deciding his representation and it is only thereafter that the DPC could have been conducted. By doing so the petitioners herein have actually followed the Machiavellian code of ethics "that ends justify the means" ignoring the fact that we in India take pride and privilege to borrow ideas from our Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, who taught us that "right means must be employed to achieve right ends". 11. Yet it needs to be clarified that learned Tribunal could not have straightaway directed the petitioners to consider the case of respondent No. 1 for promotion to the post of Joint Director by taking into account only his two ACRs, while ignoring uncommunicated ACRs which obviously means that in any event respondent No. 1 would have to be treated as outstanding and shall have to be promoted in all eventualities. This is not what was laid down in Dev Dutt''s caseor any other judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. 12. This being the admitted position, this Court has no other option but to direct the petitioners herein to consider the representation of respondent No. 1 afresh without being unnecessarily influenced by the outcome of the DPC or by the earlier rejection of the case of respondent No. 1. The needful be done as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six weeks from today. 13. The needful be done as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six weeks from today. 13. Needless to say that in case there is change in the gradation in the ACRS of respondent No. 1, then the petitioners shall hold a review DPC within a further period of two weeks'' by considering the case of respondent No. 1 along with other eligible persons and thereafter take consequential follow up action in accordance with law. 14. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of. Copy Dasti.