JUDGMENT : S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, questions the validity and propriety of the empanelled promotion list which has unjustifiably excluded him The petitioner is working as a Senior Section Engineer (Estimate), in the Office of the XEN/T & A/C, Bhubaneswar, under the Deputy Chief Engineer (Con), East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar. He appeared in the selection test conducted for the formation of Group-B Panel (AENs) against 70% for departmental promotion quota vacancies. According to the petitioner, in 2004, in the same East Coast Railway, some of the candidates, juniors to him, were empanelled for promotion, but the petitioner was illegally excluded from the list even though he had no adverse remark. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties that out of 61 candidates appeared in the written examination, 23 candidates qualified in the written test, including the petitioner, and were called for the viva-voce test on 01.10.2004. It is further submitted that the entire selection process was transparent and full proof. There was no scope left for anybody to make any objection on the selection process. The said selection was conducted by a committee comprising 3 SAG/PHODs, i.e., Principal Chief Engineer (PCE), Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) and Chief Mechanical Engineer (CME) who had been nominated by the General Manager, East Coast Railway. The committee includes PHOD (Principal Head of Department), i.e., in the present case, Principal Chief Engineer (PCE) who set the question papers for the written test. The answer sheets of the written test were evaluated by one of the SAG Officer of Engineering Department, i.e., CGE, who was also nominated by the General Manager. Since it is the case of 70% departmental promotion quota, one Professional Paper of 150 marks was prescribed for the written test in addition to other tests. Finally, the Selection Committee submitted selection proceedings before the General Manager, who is the approving authority. The candidates who secured 60% marks in the written examination i.e. 90 marks out of 150, qualified for the viva-voce test and were sent for medical examination before the viva-voce test. In the instant case, the petitioner was also sent for medical examination before the viva-voce was conducted. In terms of the Railway Board's letter No. E(GP) 80/2/8 dated 31.10.1991 and as per the instructions contained in Para-206.2 of IREM-Vol. In the instant case, the petitioner was also sent for medical examination before the viva-voce was conducted. In terms of the Railway Board's letter No. E(GP) 80/2/8 dated 31.10.1991 and as per the instructions contained in Para-206.2 of IREM-Vol. I, condition stipulated in the above circular and rules are mandatory in nature and at no point of time, deviation or relaxation is permitted to anybody. Accordingly, those who come out successful both in the written test as well as in medical test, were called upon to face the viva-voce test. In the viva-voce test, out of total 50 marks, 25 marks are allotted for Record of Service and 25 marks allotted for viva-voce as per the instructions issued by the Railway Board. Candidates those who secured 60% marks, i.e., 30 marks out of 50 marks (including at least 15 marks in the Record of Service) become eligible for final empanelment in order of their integrated seniority against 70% quota vacancies. The petitioner was also found fit in the medical test, and accordingly appeared in the viva-voce test on the said date. After conclusion of the viva-voce test, the opposite party No. 3 published a provisional panel of the successful candidates wherein the name of the petitioner was conspicuously absent. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Empanelment order dated 09.03.2006, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack vide O.A. No. 623 of 2006. His contention before the Tribunal was that he is senior to candidates especially opposite party Nos. 5 to 12. It was also contended by the petitioner that his service career was clean and unblemish. He has also not been subjected to any adverse remarks during his past service, hence, he is entitled to get full marks against the "Record of Service". The petitioner also agitated the issue of non-communication of the entry made in the ACR by the authority. During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to an apex Court judgment in Deva Dutta Vs. Union of India, 2008 (8) SCC 725 wherein the apex Court held that every entry in the ACR of a public servant must be communicated. This issue has further been reinforced in Abhijit Ghose vs. Union of India, 2009 (16) SCC 146 . The petitioner didn't get a chance to make representation and ask for upgradation. Union of India, 2008 (8) SCC 725 wherein the apex Court held that every entry in the ACR of a public servant must be communicated. This issue has further been reinforced in Abhijit Ghose vs. Union of India, 2009 (16) SCC 146 . The petitioner didn't get a chance to make representation and ask for upgradation. Hence, non-communication of the entry made in the ACR by the authority of the employee is arbitrary which violates Article 14 of the Constitution as held in Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978) SCR (2) 621. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties states that the petitioner does not have to be empanelled because he has failed in the selection at the viva-voce test and having been failed in the viva voce test, he is estopped from approaching the Tribunal. During subsistence of the O.A. No. 623 of 2006, the petitioner filed M.A. No. 299 of 2008 seeking direction to opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 to produce the marks obtained by the petitioner during the process of selection. Accordingly, vide letter dated 08.01.2009 the opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 produced the marks secured by the petitioner which may be read as follows:- (i) Total Marks for written examination 150 (ii) Pass marks for written test 90 (iii) Marks secured in written examination 94 (iv) Total marks for viva voce test 50 (v) Pass marks for viva voce 30 (vi) Marks secured in records of service 16.6 (vii) Marks secured in viva voce test 10 (viii) Total marks secured in viva voce test 26.6 5. Having considered all aspects, the Tribunal finally rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to achieve the desired marks, hence, the Tribunal does not have the power to interfere in it. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition. The contentions advanced by the petitioner in his petition are that the selection procedure was scrupulously followed in accordance with Chapter-II of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM). 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition. The contentions advanced by the petitioner in his petition are that the selection procedure was scrupulously followed in accordance with Chapter-II of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM). He further submits that since it is not a competitive one, rather a qualifying one, and the petitioner had obtained more than the minimum qualifying marks, there is no reason why the opposite parties deny the opportunity of getting empanelled him for promotion It is also not desirable on the part of the opposite party No. 2 to prepare a part panel wherein the eligible and qualified employees are available as per the following selection procedure: Maximum Marks Qualifying Marks (i) Professional ability 50 30 (ii) Personality, Address, Leadership & Academic technical qualifications 25 15 (iii) Record of service 25 15 100 60 7. In the instant case, there were a total number of twenty one posts notified to be filled up through departmental promotion, but only 14 candidates were notified to have been promoted and the rest seven vacancies remained unfulfilled. The petitioner herein, was neither given promotion nor was communicated with the sufficient reasons of his non-selection. 8. It is also submitted that since the petitioner did not have any adverse remarks in his service career, he is entitled to get sufficiently higher marks in so far as "Record of Service" is concerned. Further, the opposite party No. 2 has taken written test, viva voce test and "Record of Service" separately, which is wholly undesirable while computing the marks for promotion, because they are always taken together. It is further submitted that the opposite party Nos. 5 to 11 have been selected, who were similarly placed with the petitioner, whereas the petitioner was unjustifiably denied. 9. It is further submitted that the opposite party Nos. 5 to 11 have been selected, who were similarly placed with the petitioner, whereas the petitioner was unjustifiably denied. 9. On perusal of the original record, it has been revealed that the letter dated 08.01.2009 has contained the detail marks secured by the petitioner, which may be furnished below: Name of the candidate Total marks for Written Examination Pass marks for Written Test Marks secured in Written Examination Total marks for Viva-voce Test Pass marks for Viva-voce Test Marks secured in Records of Service Marks secured in Viva-voce Test Total marks secured in Viva-voce Test Remarks Shri Puspak Ranjan Nayak SSE (Con.)/KUR/BBS 150 90 94 50-25 marks each for Record of Service and Viva-voce 30 Including minimum 15 marks in Record of Service 16.6 10 26.6 Not Suitable 10. In our view two important aspects have given a raw deal by the authority that is (i) the non-communication of the insertion of entry in the ACR (ii) the non-communication about his non-selection. The communication of entries in the annual confidential report of a public servant warrants a civil consequence and may adversely affect his chance of promotion or other service related benefits. Hence, such non-communication is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Every entry in the "Service Book" whether it is fair, poor, average, good or very good marks need to be communicated to the concerned employee within a reasonable period which brings about the desired level of transparency in the selection/promotion process. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner had no adverse remarks or any negative record, hence he deserves to secure a decent marks in "Record of Service" which have been wrongly denied to him leading to poor score in the C.C.R. The Railway authority has also failed to intimate him about his entry in ACR. In fact, he would have got an opportunity to rectify or upgrade the score, if it is not satisfactory. 11. In the instant case, we are of the view that the petitioner has neither been communicated any reasons for his non-selection nor has he been communicated about the entry in his ACR. In fact, he would have got an opportunity to rectify or upgrade the score, if it is not satisfactory. 11. In the instant case, we are of the view that the petitioner has neither been communicated any reasons for his non-selection nor has he been communicated about the entry in his ACR. These two aspects have not been taken into account properly which resulted in poor score in the evaluation of C.C.R. Had the C.C.R. been evaluated properly, the petitioner would have scored higher marks and his exclusion from the empanelled list could have been averted. 12. In view of the aforesaid findings, we set-aside the impugned order dated 16.03.2009 passed by CAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 623 of 2006 with a direction to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the promotion of the petitioner retrospectively with all consequential benefits within two months from the presentation of this order. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost.