JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus Calling for records relating to the impugned order of the respondent made in official communication No.D1 (B)/TE/ 2016/ 811 dated 29.9.2016 to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondent to forthwith extend and grant all accrued benefits of Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) from the post of Assistant Professor Stage 3 to that of Associate Professor Stage 4 from the date on which the same fell due with all service accruals thereto.) 1. Writ petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified mandamus seeking interference with the order dated 29.09.2016 passed by the respondent and direct the respondent to extend and grant all accrued benefits of Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) from the post of Assistant Professor stage 3 to that of Associate Professor stage 4, from the date on which it felt due right from the date of service of the petitioner herein. 2. The writ petitioner, who could have concentrated on his academics, has unfortunately came to this Court complaining that this particular promotion had not been granted to him within the stipulated period. 3. The writ petitioner had joined as Research Assistant in what was originally Dr.Ambedkar Chair in Economics in Madras University on 29.6.2001. This chair, namely, Dr.Ambedkar Chair in Economics, has been absorbed as a specific department in the Madras University subsequently. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that every Research Assistant has a right to being promoted within the stipulated time. The petitioner claims from the post of Research Officer, the petitioner, within 4 years should be given stage one promotion and thereafter within five years, the Research Officer should be granted further promotion, which is called second stage Assistant Professor and thereafter within a period of three years, the Research Assistant must be further promoted to fourth stage Associate Professor. 5. The petitioner was not unfortunately granted promotions within time. This necessitated him to file an earlier W.P.No.30612 of 2014 seeking to implement the resolutions of the respondents, which provided for promotions in the aforementioned stages. A direction was issued to so follow the resolutions of the respondents. It was stated that, due to non compliance with the said direction, the petitioner filed contempt petition no.1181 of 2015. This necessitated him to file an earlier W.P.No.30612 of 2014 seeking to implement the resolutions of the respondents, which provided for promotions in the aforementioned stages. A direction was issued to so follow the resolutions of the respondents. It was stated that, due to non compliance with the said direction, the petitioner filed contempt petition no.1181 of 2015. Pending the contempt petition, the respondent had produced two orders which granted him promotion with effect from 29.06.2005, which is the first stage of promotion and 29.06.2010 the second stage promotion. The petitioner wanted the third stage of promotion as Associate Professor. But that order was not issued by the respondents. 6. On the other hand, the respondent had produced before the Court in the contempt, a record, wherein it had been stated that the credentials and work of the petitioner had been evaluated by a panel of experts and there was an adverse remarks as against the petitioner herein by the fourth respondent. It was therefore stated that the petitioner was not entitled for automatic promotion from the post of Assistant Professor to Associate Professor. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a communication issued wherein, the petitioner was called for an interview and was found eligible to be considered for the post of Professor, and, therefore, he had a legitimate expectation to be eligible for the post of Assistant Professor, which is one step lower than that of the Professor. 8. But that argument cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner herein since a reading of the said letter indicates that mere issuance of the said letter would not guarantee that the petitioner would be offered in the post of Professor. 9. The only issue which is now raised in the writ petition is the non grant of promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor. 10. The respondent justified the denial of such promotion on the basis of what they termed ''adverse remarks'' against the petitioner herein. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such adverse remarks has not been communicated to the petitioner herein. 12. Learned Standing counsel for the respondent stated that as the Rule, it is not normally communicated. 13. But if there is no communication, then the question which begs an answer is how the petitioner would ever get any promotion or any other benefit elsewhere during his service period. 12. Learned Standing counsel for the respondent stated that as the Rule, it is not normally communicated. 13. But if there is no communication, then the question which begs an answer is how the petitioner would ever get any promotion or any other benefit elsewhere during his service period. It is therefore necessary that such adverse remarks which is based on the confidential reports are necessarily communicated to every individual, who is in service and explanation must be sought. Later the respondents can reserve a right to either accept or reject the explanation. But once any adverse remarks are reflected in the service register and are the reasons for non grant of promotion then every employee is entitled to know as to what the remarks were and under what instance such adverse remarks were passed by respondent / employer. The fundamental rule in service law is that no person should be condemned unheard. There must be an opportunity given to every employee to answer any allegation, which constitute, according to the respondent, adverse remarks. 14. Learned Standing Counsel also raised an issue that the University Grants Commission had not been impleaded as party respondent in the present writ petition. If the issue had been with respect to evaluation of the credentials of the petitioner herein then the University Grants Commission would be a necessary party, since they are also in the panel of the experts, who evaluated the credentials of the petitioner herein. 15. But here is a case, where the Head of Department had passed adverse remarks against the petitioner herein and, therefore, so far as this particular petitioner is concerned, that adverse remarks should be communicated. This is distinct from the evaluation of the credentials or the papers submitted by the petitioners, which is done by team of experts. The University Grants Commission is therefore not a necessary party. 16. A direction is issued to the respondent herein to convey the adverse remarks to the petitioner herein and give an opportunity to the petitioner to answer the same, as otherwise, the remarks would have a stigma on the career of the petitioner herein. 17. Let the petitioner be given an opportunity to answer to the said adverse remarks and the respondent may take the explanation to the advantage of the petitioner or reject it to the disadvantage of the petitioner. This is a right vested with the respondent. 17. Let the petitioner be given an opportunity to answer to the said adverse remarks and the respondent may take the explanation to the advantage of the petitioner or reject it to the disadvantage of the petitioner. This is a right vested with the respondent. But they cannot rely on remarks which are never communicated to the petitioner herein and place reliance on the same and claim that the petitioner is dis-entitled for promotion on the basis that particular adverse remarks. 18. Therefore, the even though the relief sought in the writ petition is not granted to the petitioner herein, a direction is given to the respondent to convey the adverse remarks as found in the confidential report of the petitioner herein to the petitioner and seek necessary explanation from the petitioner. Such adverse remarks should be communicated within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 19. Writ petition stands disposed of since the relief sought is not granted, a direction is issued to the respondent to convey adverse remarks to the petitioner. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.