JUDGMENT : 1. Being aggrieved by omission and commissions on the part of respondents, petitioner has approached this Court for not-considering his case for promotion in the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short “DPC”) held on 18.4.2017, on the ground that his Annual Confidential Reports (for short “ACRs”) and Annual Performance Assessment Reports (for short “APARs”) were not “very good” as per requirement of Office Memorandum dated 27.2.2016 and resultantly petitioner was denied appointment to the post of Professor (Pharmacology) in Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC), Shimla. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Assistant Professor (Pharmacology) on 28.8.2001 and was promoted as Associate Professor (Pharmacology) on 28.8.2006 and was designated as Professor (Pharmacology) on 3.12.2014 in his own pay scale without extra remuneration under the Time Bound Designation/upgradation Scheme, 2014. 3. Undisputed facts in present case are that petitioner was eligible to be promoted as Professor on 28.8.2010, but there was no vacancy available at that time. The vacancy arose on retirement of respondent No. 4, on 1.2.2017, and thereafter Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 18.4.2017, wherein name of petitioner was not considered for not having ACRs and APARs as “Very Good” and also for adverse entries in ACRs. Before meeting of DPC, petitioner, after acquiring knowledge about downgrading his ACRs and APARs, applied for copies thereof under Right to Information Act, as these adverse entries and downgrading of ACRs and APARs were never communicated to him either before downgrading or thereafter. 4. Present petition was filed on 17.9.2018. Petitioner had also represented to the Director of Medical Education against downgrading of ACRs and adverse entries made therein. After taking into consideration the said representation, Director of Medical Education had upgraded the same to the level of “Very Good”. Thereafter, another meeting for filling up the post of Professor (Pharmacology) was convened on 21.12.2017. Petitioner was senior most in the zone of consideration, but it was found that though ARCs were upgraded to the level of “Very Good”, but adverse entries against column numbers 19, 22 and 25 in the ACRs of the petitioner were not removed and, therefore, Director of Medical Education was asked to furnish his comments about these three entries vide communication dated 3.2.2018 with specific reference to respond specifically about the sustainability of these adverse remarks especially when no reasons had been assigned by the Reporting Officer while making adverse entries. It was stated in the reply that remarks of Director Medical Education were awaited. During pendency of petition, petitioner has been promoted to the post of Professor Pharmacology on 6.10.2018. 5. There is no defence on the part of respondents for not considering the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Professor (Pharmacology) in the meeting convened on 18.4.2017 or on 21.12.2017, except that his ACRs were downgraded and there were adverse entries in column numbers 19, 22 and 25. Reply filed on behalf of respondents itself depicts that these adverse remarks were made without assigning any reason by Reporting Officer and downgrading of ACRs was also found illegal and arbitrary and, therefore, Director of Health Education, on representation of petitioner, had upgraded the ACRs to the level of “Very Good” which was the basic requirement for consideration to be promoted as Professor (Pharmacology). Once overall level has been upgraded to Very Good, then any lapse on the part of Reviewing Officer in removing the adverse entries from the ACRs, on the basis of which ACRs were downgraded, is a ministerial mistake. For upgrading the level to “Very Good” in ARCs, these adverse entries are deemed to have been removed as both, i.e. level of “Very Good” and adverse entries in three columns cannot co-exist. Claim of petitioner, that downgrading of his ACRs was illegal and arbitrary, has been accepted by the Competent Authority and respondent-Department. Therefore, petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of correction/upgradation of his ACRs from the due date. 6. Case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 was Reporting Officer and he was biased against the petitioner and because of his behavior petitioner was compelled to file CWP No. 10842 of 2012 before this High Court against respondent No. 4 for continuous harassment, victimization, humiliation and defamation of the petitioner by respondent No. 4 in one way or the other and thereafter respondent No. 4 was removed from examiner-ship in March, 2013 on the basis of judgment dated 1.3.2013 passed in the said Writ Petition and later on, on the basis of vigilance inquiry, by Superintendent of Police, SV & ACB South Range, Shimla, departmental action was also recommended against respondent No. 4 and a warning letter was also issued to respondent No. 4 as well as Dr. P.K. Kaundal. P.K. Kaundal. It is in the aforesaid background that respondent No. 4 Reporting Officer had made adverse entries in the ACRs and downgraded the level of ACRs of the petitioner in order to take revenge from the petitioner. 7. It is further case of the petitioner that process was to be initiated for appointment to the post of Professor (Pharmacology) prior to retirement of respondent No. 4 in anticipation of availability of vacancy w.e.f. 1.2.2017. According to him respondent No. 4 did not take any step for that as he was inimical to the petitioner, and rather adverse entries were made in the ACRs by respondent No. 4 to downgrade the same in order to deprive the petitioner from his legal entitlement and, therefore, it has been prayed that petitioner deserved to be considered for the post of Professor (Pharmacology) from the date of vacancy i.e. 1.2.2017. 8. Petitioner was always entitled as well as willing and ready to perform his job as Professor (Pharmacology) and in fact he was designated as Profession (Pharmacology) w.e.f. 3.12.2014 under the Scheme as noted supra, but he was deprived from regular promotion to the said post on account of omission and commission on the part of respondents and, therefore, there is no fault on the part of petitioner, for denial of his promotion from the due date and, therefore, petitioner is also entitled for all consequential monetary benefits for which he was entitled on promotion from the due date. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present petition is allowed and respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Professor (Pharmacology) and to appoint him as Professor (Pharmacology) from the date of accrual of vacancy, i.e. 1.2.2017, alongwith consequential benefits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 30th November, 2022. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any.