JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos.1-5 and Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. No one appears for the respondent No.7. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the promotion of his junior i.e. the respondent No.7 from the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) to the post of District Transport Officer (DTO) (Group B post), has prayed for setting aside the promotion of the respondent No.7 and prayed for a direction to be issued promoting the petitioner to the post of DTO. 3. The petitioner’s case in brief is that for the purpose of promotion to the vacant post of DTO, the ACR of 5 years of the petitioner, the respondent No. 7 and one C. Lalawmpuia were considered by the respondent No. 6, MPSC. However, as the petitioner had not attained the bench mark of ‘Very Good’ for promotion to the group ‘A’ post of DTO, the petitioner was not selected and the respondent No. 7 who attained the bench mark of ‘Very Good’, was recommended for promotion by the MPSC vide the Meeting Minutes of the MPSC dated 22.03.2017. Consequently, the respondent No. 7 was promoted to the post of DTO vide notification dated 04.04.2017. 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the respondent No. 6 had considered the ACRs of the candidates for promotion pertaining to the years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. As the petitioner’s ACR for all the years under consideration was ‘Good’, except for the year 2007-08 where he was graded ‘Very Good’, the petitioner did not attain the bench mark of ‘Very Good’, as required in terms of the procedure to be observed by Departmental Promotion Committees contained in the Office Memorandum dated 15.07.2010 issued by the Govt. of Mizoram, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (General Service Wing). 5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner not being given the benchmark of “Very good” was akin to having being graded as Adverse. He submits that the ACR gradings for the 4 (four) years from 2008-09 till 2011-12 was communicated to the petitioner by the respondent No. 5 vide letter dated 21.10.2016 and he was asked to submit a representation in this regard within 10 (ten) days. He submits that the ACR gradings for the 4 (four) years from 2008-09 till 2011-12 was communicated to the petitioner by the respondent No. 5 vide letter dated 21.10.2016 and he was asked to submit a representation in this regard within 10 (ten) days. Thereafter, another letter dated 02.11.2016 was issued by the respondent No. 5 to the petitioner stating that he was being furnished with copies of the ACRs for the year ending 31.03.2009, 31.03.2010, 31.03.2011 and 31.03.2012, wherein his overall grading was below the bench mark and he was asked to submit a representation on or before 14.11.2016. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 14.11.2016 stating that he was graded below the bench mark in the above 4 (four) ACRs due to him suffering from stroke and high blood pressure for which he was unable to do anything. In his representation, the petitioner also stated that he could provide his Hospital report and Hospital papers to prove his medical problem. He also denied that the signature in his ACRs for the year 2008-09 and 2009-10 were his signatures. The petitioner also states in his representation dated 14.11.2016 that he did not write the ACRs for the years 2008-09 till 2011-12. The petitioner in his representation thus states that though he is handicapped, he could perform the job required of a DTO even with his physical infirmity. He accordingly prayed that he should be promoted to the post of DTO. 6. The petitioner’s representation was thereafter rejected by the respondent No. 5 vide letter dated 20.12.2016, which states that the petitioner’s representation could not be accepted in law. 7. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the delay in communicating the Adverse grading of the petitioner in his ACRs for the 4 years commencing from 2008-09 to 2011-12 being beyond the period of 3 (three) months, in terms of the OM dated 20.12.1990 issued by the Govt. of Mizoram, Political & Cabinet Department, the respondent No. 6 could not have considered the petitioner’s ACRs for the year 2008-09 to 2011-12 for the purpose of selection for promotion to the post of DTO. He submits that the petitioner’s 4(four) ACRs preceding the year 2007-08 should have been considered by the respondent No. 6 for promotion to the post of DTO. In support of his submission, the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court State of Haryana Vs. He submits that the petitioner’s 4(four) ACRs preceding the year 2007-08 should have been considered by the respondent No. 6 for promotion to the post of DTO. In support of his submission, the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court State of Haryana Vs. P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General of Police & Anr. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 602 , wherein it has been held that where the adverse remarks are communicated after an in-ordinate delay, the adverse remarks having lost all importance, should be struck down. 8. The petitioner’s counsel has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 and in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2013) 9 SCC 566 , wherein it has been held that every entry in the ACR 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. He also submits that the Apex Court in the above 2 (two) cases has held that non-communication of entry is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 9. The petitioner’s counsel also submits that the change in the ACR grading of the petitioner from ‘Very Good’ in the year 2007-08 to ‘Good’ in the subsequent ACRs should have been communicated to the petitioner or else, the down grading could not be sustained. He submits that un-communicated ACRs cannot be considered for promotion and that the representation filed for upgradation of adverse ACRs have to be considered judiciously and not to be rejected unjudiciously. As the petitioner’s representation dated 14.11.2016 had been rejected by way of a cryptic order on 20.12.2016, the unjudicious manner in rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for upgradation should be set aside. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Ghasi Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2015 (1) GLT (ML) 121. The petitioner’s counsel submits that un-communicated adverse entry in the ACR cannot be considered for promotion and in this regard, he has relied upon the Judgment of this Court in Sheo Balak Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2016 (2) GLT 233. 10. Union of India & Ors., 2015 (1) GLT (ML) 121. The petitioner’s counsel submits that un-communicated adverse entry in the ACR cannot be considered for promotion and in this regard, he has relied upon the Judgment of this Court in Sheo Balak Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2016 (2) GLT 233. 10. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner suffered a stroke on 06.02.2008 and attended office only from 08.08.2011. As per the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board on 13.06.2012, the petitioner suffered disability of 75% locomotor cerebral palsy. He submits that as the petitioner was suffering from a disease, the petitioner should have been considered for promotion to the post of DTO in terms of Section 20 of the Rights of Person with Disability Act, 2016, hereinafter referred to as the ‘2016 Act’. He submits that the petitioner could not have been discriminating for promotion, just because he was suffering from locomotor disease. The petitioner’s counsel thus prays that the promotion of the respondent No. 7, who is his junior, should be set aside and a direction should be issued to promote the petitioner. 11. Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submits that the petitioner’s case is that his suffered a stroke on 06.02.2008 due to which he did not attend office till 08.08.2011. The petitioner suddenly attended office only after 3 years 6 months 2 days i.e. on 09.08.2011. Between the 06.02.2008 and 08.08.2011, the petitioner did not submit any application for any kind of leave before the concerned authority. No disability certificate or medical certificate was submitted by the petitioner, claiming leave of any kind during his unauthorized leave of absence. The petitioner was thus un-authorisely absent and the petitioner’s disability certificate apparently issued by the Medical Board on 13.06.2012 was submitted to the State respondents only on 02.09.2016. As such, there was no occasion for the respondents to recognize the petitioner as a disabled person. Further, the respondent No. 7 was selected over the petitioner, not due to the petitioner’s alleged disability, but due to the petitioner not getting the required bench mark of ‘Very Good’ for promotion to the post of DTO. 12. The learned Govt. As such, there was no occasion for the respondents to recognize the petitioner as a disabled person. Further, the respondent No. 7 was selected over the petitioner, not due to the petitioner’s alleged disability, but due to the petitioner not getting the required bench mark of ‘Very Good’ for promotion to the post of DTO. 12. The learned Govt. Advocate submits that the petitioner was given an opportunity to make a representation against the grading given in his ACR, prior to the meeting held by respondent No.6 for selection of the candidates for promotion. The petitioner’s representation against the gradings in his ACRs was also considered and rejected by the competent authority prior to the selection made by the MPSC in its meeting minutes dated 22.03.2017. As such, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner due to the delay in communicating the petitioner’s ACR grading. 13. Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that the petitioner was not selected for promotion to the post of DTO in terms of the Mizoram Transport Department (Group ‘B’ post) Recruitment Rules, 1993, hereinafter referred to the ‘1993 Rules’ and in terms of the OM dated 15.07.2010 issued by the Govt. of Mizoram, DP & AR (GSW), wherein the required bench mark for promotion to Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ Gazetted post is ‘Very Good’. The petitioner having being graded as unfit by the respondent No. 6, in terms of the OM dated 15.07.2010, there is no infirmity with the non-selection of the petitioner for the post of DTO. 14. I have heard the counsels for the parties. 15. The bench mark required for promotion to the post of DTO is ‘Very Good’, after considering 5 years ACRs of the candidates in terms of the OM dated 15.07.2010. 16. The gradings given to the candidates in their ACRs and the overall grading given by the respondent No.6 to the candidate’s in their meeting minutes dated 22.03.2017 is reproduced below : Sl. No. Name of Officer 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 Overall grading 1. Lalthankima (Petitioner) VG G G G G Unfit 2. H. Lalhmingliana VG OS VG VG VG Fit 3. C. Lalawmpuia VG VG VG VG VG Fit 17. No. Name of Officer 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 Overall grading 1. Lalthankima (Petitioner) VG G G G G Unfit 2. H. Lalhmingliana VG OS VG VG VG Fit 3. C. Lalawmpuia VG VG VG VG VG Fit 17. The issue to be decided is as to whether the delay in communicating to the petitioner, the overall grading given in the petitioner 4 ACRs for the years 2008-09 to 2011-12, caused any prejudice to the petitioner’s case when the MPSC (respondent No. 6) considered the candidates for promotion to the post of DTO. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. PC Wadhwa (Supra), the Apex Court was seized of a situation where rule 7 of the All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 made under Article 309 of the Constitution required that the adverse remarks in a confidential report were to be communicated to the officer concerned within 3 months of the receipt of the confidential report. By reading rule 7 with Rule 5, 6 & 6A of the All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970, seven months was the maximum period for communicating the adverse remarks. However, the adverse remarks was communicated after twenty seven months. The Apex Court held that it did not approve of the inordinate delay in communicating the adverse remarks. However, it did not strike down the adverse remarks. In the above case, the adverse remark was sent to the officer concerned after the expiry of the limitation period provided in the rules. 18. The above being said, the Apex Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Supra) and Dev Dutt (Supra) have held that every entry in the ACR 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, non-communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution. 19. The Meghalaya High Court in Ghasi Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors., (Supra) has observed that the Apex Court in Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 214 held that non communicated adverse ACRs may not be considered for next higher promotion. Representation filed for upgradation of un-communicated adverse ACRs should be considered judiciously and not to be rejected unjudiciously. 20. In the case of Sheo Balak Singh Vs. Union of India (Supra), this Court had held that un-communicated adverse entries in the ACR cannot be considered for promotion of an officer as it was in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, in the present case, the petitioner was informed about the gradings in his ACR which was below the Bench-Mark and the petitioner also made a representation against the same, which was considered and rejected by the respondents, prior to the selection process conducted by the respondent no.6 for promotion to the post of DTO. The Director, Transport Department had issued a letter dated 21.10.2016 to the petitioner informing him that the overall grading for the ACRs ending 31.03.2009, 31.03.2010, 31.03.2011 and 31.03.2012 were good, which was below the bench mark. The petitioner was accordingly informed to submit representation with regard to the above. In reply to the above communication dated 21.10.2016, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Director, Transport Department on 28.10.2016, requesting the Director to furnish copies of his ACRs for the years ending from 31.03.2009 – 31.03.2012, to enable him to file an “effective representation” against the overall grading given to him during the aforesaid period. The petitioner also made a request to extend the last date for submission of his representation for another 10 days from the date of receipt of the copies of the said ACRs. The Director, Transport Department thereafter issued a letter dated 02.11.2016 stating that the ACRs for the years ending 31.03.2009 to 31.03.2012 has been furnished and informed the petitioner to submit his representation on or before 14.11.2016, i.e. by giving him another 12 days after receipt of the ACRs. The Director, Transport Department thereafter issued a letter dated 02.11.2016 stating that the ACRs for the years ending 31.03.2009 to 31.03.2012 has been furnished and informed the petitioner to submit his representation on or before 14.11.2016, i.e. by giving him another 12 days after receipt of the ACRs. In view of the facts, as stated above, the submission of the petitioner’s counsel that the State respondents could not have considered the petitioner’s ACRs for the period from 2008-09 to 2011-12, at the time of the selection process for promotion to the post of DTO, is not sustainable. The petitioner cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time. Further, it is settled law that this Court cannot substitute the gradings/views of the competent authority. 21. The petitioner has submitted an OM dated 20.12.1990 issued by the Govt. of Mizoram, Political & Cabinet Department, which says that all adverse entries in a confidential report should be communicated to the officer concerned within 1 (one) month from the date of completion of the confidential report or within 3 (three) months from the date on which the report becomes due. Though, the adverse entries in the petitioner’s Confidential Reports were not communicated within the stipulated period provided in the OM dated 20.12.1990, it is not in dispute that the OM adverse entries had been communicated to the petitioner and that the petitioner had vide letter dated 28.10.2016 requested the Director, Transport to furnish copies of the relevant ACRs to enable him to make an “effective representation” against the same. The petitioner thereafter made a representation dated 14.11.2016 with regard to the same. As such, this Court is of the view that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner due to his representation being rejected, only on the ground that the adverse entries of the petitioner’s ACR had been communicated to him belatedly. 22. The petitioner’s representation was rejected vide letter dated 20.12.2016 on the ground that the petitioner’s representation could not be accepted in law. 23. In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the view that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, as the petitioner was considered for promotion. However, he was not promoted due to the petitioner not attaining the bench mark. Further, there is nothing to show that the post of DTO is a post reserved for persons with disabilities. 24. However, he was not promoted due to the petitioner not attaining the bench mark. Further, there is nothing to show that the post of DTO is a post reserved for persons with disabilities. 24. A perusal of the petitioner’s representation dated 14.11.2016 on the other hand, clearly shows that the petitioner has not prayed for upgradation of his grading in the ACR for the year 2008-09 to 2010-11. Further, his purported signatures in the above ACRs were not his. The State respondents have however taken the stand that the ACRs were submitted by the petitioner. With regard to the above contention, a reading of the respondents’ affidavit shows that the petitioner has not revealed/produced all the facts and documents that could have a bearing on this issue. On the directions of this Court, the petitioner has produced the letter dated 08.07.2016 issued by the petitioner’s father to the respondents for promotion of the petitioner to the post of DTO. The petitioner has also produced the letter dated 21.07.2016 issued to the petitioner by the Directorate of Transport stating that the petitioner had violated Rule 3 (1)(iii) of the CCS Conduct Rules and letter dated 01.08.2016 issued by the petitioner to the respondents, which has been made in reply to the letter dated 21.07.2016 issued by the Directorate of Transport. The petitioner has also submitted a copy of the show cause notice dated 02.09.2016 issued to the petitioner by the respondents. 25. A perusal of the writ petition shows that the petitioner, in his representation dated 14.11.2016, had stated that the petitioner’s signature in ACR Part-II No. 2 for the period 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 were different. The petitioner further states that there is no signature of the petitioner in Part-II No. 2 for the ACRs 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. However, there is no specific pleading made by the petitioner in the writ petition or even in the petitioner’s rejoinder affidavit that he did not make or submit his ACRs for the years 2008-2009 to 2011-2012. 26. The petitioner having now taken the stand in his representation dated 14.11.2016 that he did not write the ACR for the year 2008-2009 to 2010-2011, which the respondents have disputed, shows that there are disputed questions of facts. 26. The petitioner having now taken the stand in his representation dated 14.11.2016 that he did not write the ACR for the year 2008-2009 to 2010-2011, which the respondents have disputed, shows that there are disputed questions of facts. It is seen that the petitioner for the first time in his representation dated 14.11.2016 has taken a stand that he did not sign the above ACRs, though the petitioner is silent with regard to the above issue in his letter dated 01.08.2016 addressed to the Director of Transport. In fact, in the petitioner’s letter dated 01.08.2016, the petitioner has stated that it seems that the petitioner’s father had heard rumors that the petitioner could be barred for promotion as the petitioner’s ACRs were not satisfactory. In the second last paragraph of the letter dated 01.08.2016, the petitioner has also stated as follows – “I would like to mention that I do not have any official information whether my ACR is satisfactory or not and I have heard only rumors that my physical health condition may affect my ACR”. The petitioner in his letter dated 28.10.2016 had also requested the Directorate of Transport to furnish to the petitioner, copies of his ACRs for the years ending from 31.03.2009 – 31.03.2012, to enable him to file an “effective representation” against the overall grading given to him during the aforesaid period. The petitioner has nowhere stated in the above letter dated 28.10.2016 that he did not write or submit the above ACRs. The implication of the contents of the above letter dated 28.10.2016 is that the petitioner wanted to make an effective representation against the overall grading only. He is totally silent with the plea taken by him in his representation dated 14.11.2016 that the above ACRs were not written or submitted by him. In view of the above reasons, this Court does not accept the stand of the petitioner that the above ACRs were not written or submitted by him. 27. The letter dated 21.07.2016 and show cause notice dated 02.09.2016 issued by the Directorate of Transport to the petitioner states that at the time of joining, the employees were required to submit a physical fitness certificate to the controlling officer. However, on joining the office on 08.08.2011, the petitioner submitted a mental fitness certificate instead of a physical fitness certificate. The letter dated 21.07.2016 and show cause notice dated 02.09.2016 issued by the Directorate of Transport to the petitioner states that at the time of joining, the employees were required to submit a physical fitness certificate to the controlling officer. However, on joining the office on 08.08.2011, the petitioner submitted a mental fitness certificate instead of a physical fitness certificate. The above letter dated 21.07.2016 also states that the petitioner did not submit any disability certificate to the Department. The respondents had also questioned as to how the petitioner could have taken full pay during his period of absence of more than 3 (three) years without any leave being sanctioned by the authorities. It is also seen that though the petitioner did not attend office for more than three years, he did not apply for leave. 28. It is also noticed that after the promotion of the respondent No.7 to the post of DTO, no representation has been made by the petitioner to the State respondents challenging the said promotion. Though the petitioner has taken the stand that he has not signed the ACR for the year 2008-09 to 2010-11 in his representation dated 14.11.2016, the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition, which has not been controverted by the petitioner shows that the ACRs of the petitioner for the year 2008-09 to 2010-11 had been made and submitted by him. With regard to the petitioner’s contention that the petitioner should have been considered for promotion on the ground of his disability in terms of the PWD Act, 2016, the petitioner has not been able to show he has been discriminated against in terms of the PWD Act, 2016. Further, the petitioner having been considered for promotion in terms of the 1993 Rules and the OM dated 15.07.2010, this Court finds that no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated by the respondents. 29. In view of the above reasons, this Court does not find any reason to exercise its discretion in this case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.