JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside grading/remark of the petitioner made by the concerned respondent authority in Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 as "good" and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Registrar; (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions the respondent authorities to give deemed date promotion to the petitioner to the post of Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society w.e.f. 29.03.2011 (when Departmental Promotion Committee met for consideration of promotion) with all consequential benefit and arrears of pay. 2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar for the petitioner has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by various judgments of the Supreme Court as considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment and order dated 30th September, 2016 in Special Civil Application No. 5945 of 2011, which is confirmed by the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 08th March, 2019 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 559 of 2019. 3. The established facts from the petition are that the petitioner was communicated the remark "Good" in the Annual Confidential Report (for short "ACR") for the years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2007-2008. In view of the communication of the aforesaid remark, the petitioner was not considered for promotion on the post of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society since the criteria for promotion to the aforesaid post is "very good" or "outstanding". 4. He has submitted that the aforesaid remarks though is termed as "good", the same is required to be communicated in light of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. 4. He has submitted that the aforesaid remarks though is termed as "good", the same is required to be communicated in light of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others, reported in [ (2008) 8 SCC 725 , Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India and Others, reported in [ (2013) 9 SCC 566 ], Abhijit Gosh Dastidar v. Union of India and Others, [ (2009) 16 SCC 146 ] and Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal v. Chairman, U.P.S.C. and others A.I.R. 2015 SC 3057. 5. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Majmudar that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met on 29th March, 2011. Since the case of the petitioner was not considered, the petitioner filed an application under THE Right to Information Act, 2005, wherein it was informed that the petitioner was not promoted due to communication of the remark "Good". It is submitted that by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the petitioner was got "very good" remark in his ACR. Thus, he has submitted that since the aforesaid remark was not communicated, the same is required to be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner to the promotion to the post of Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society w.e.f. 29th March, 2011. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Joshi has submitted that the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion since the remark "Good" was communicated to the petitioner and as per the criteria laid down by the Rules, a candidate who possesses "very good" or "outstanding" remarks for 5 years out of last 8 years is required to be considered for further promotion. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Joshi has submitted that the aforesaid remark of "Good" is not required to be communicated to the petitioner in his ACR. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi appearing for the respondent No. 4 has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 9. The present writ petition filed for expunging the remark/grading of the petitioner as "Good" recorded in the ACR for the years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2007-2008. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi appearing for the respondent No. 4 has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 9. The present writ petition filed for expunging the remark/grading of the petitioner as "Good" recorded in the ACR for the years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2007-2008. From the submissions of the learned advocates of the respective parties as well as the averments made in the writ petition, it is established that the aforesaid remark of "Good" as recorded in the ACR report, is not communicated to the petitioner. 10. The Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 559 of 2019 by order dated 08.03.2019, while dealing with the analogous scenario, wherein the remark "Good" though entered into the ACR was not communicated has observed thus; 4. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and on perusal of the record, the facts with regard to assessment of ACRs and service record of the petitioner for the relevant years remained undisputed, however, the question remains about communicating "Good" entries made in the remark column to the petitioner by the authority. The learned Single Judge extensively relied on the decisions in the cases of Dev Dutt [supra], Sukhdev Singh [supra], Abhijit Gosh Dastidar [supra], and Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal [supra], wherein the Apex Court held that fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries whether poor, fair, average, good or in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant are required to be communicated so that proper representation can be addressed by such public servant. In para 7 of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge reproduced important quotations of various decisions of the Apex Court. Para 19 of the judgment in the case of Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal [supra] is very important, therefore, we are reproducing the same in the order, which read as under: 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 ......" 5. In our considered view, un-communicated "Good" remarks for the respective years expunged by learned Single Judge and further direction to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies on the basis of "Very Good" remarks in his ACR for the remaining years with effect from the DPC meeting convened on 19.03.2011 do not require any interference and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 11. Thus, no more res integra, which is entered into the ACR and has any adverse effect on the promotion, is required to be communicated to the concerned employee. 12. In this view of the settled legal proposition of law, the action of the respondent authorities is hereby required to be quashed and set aside. The impugned remark/grading of the petitioner as "Good" entered into the ACRs of the petitioner for the years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 are required to be expunged and the respondents are further directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, Gandhinagar from the date on which the DPC met. The retirement benefits shall be revised accordingly. 13. The Coordinate Bench in the judgment and order dated 30th September 2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 5945 of 2011, after dealing with the identical fact and situation, has passed the following order,:- The uncommunicated "Good" remarks in the ACRs of the petitioner for the years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2007-08, are hereby expunged. The petitioner shall be considered for promotion to the post of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, on the basis of the 'Very Good' remarks in his ACRs for the remaining years, with effect from the date on which the DPC met on 19.03.2011. As the petitioner has superannuated on 30.09.2012, the consequential benefits of promotion shall be given effect to insofar as his retiral benefits are concerned, as per his entitlement. 14. As the petitioner has superannuated on 30.09.2012, the consequential benefits of promotion shall be given effect to insofar as his retiral benefits are concerned, as per his entitlement. 14. The aforesaid order is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 559 of 2019 by order dated 08.03.2019. The present writ petition is allowed in terms and issued the similar directions since the petitioner has superannuated in the month of October-2014. 15. In view of the above directions, the present writ petition stands allowed. Rule made absolute.