ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 02-01-2016 (Anexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.1 by which the petitioner’s application for up-gradation of ACR has been rejected, also prayed for expunge of adverse remarks recorded in the ACR on 10.04.2008 (Annexure P/4) and the petitioner be kindly granted selection grade pay scale with effect from 27.07.1998. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction to the respondent to consider her case for promotion on the post of Professor with all consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Professor (Chemistry) on 17-3-1987 for probation period of two years. The petitioner’s service conditions were governed by MP Educational Services (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules 1967 (for short, “the Rules 1967”) subsequently these rules were deleted and new rules were framed by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh as MP Educational Services (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules 1990 (for short, “the Rules 1990”). The Rule 16 of the Rules, 1990 provides appointment by promotion. Schedule–IV of rule 16 of the Rules, 1990 provides that Assistant Professors are entitled to get senior pay scale and selection grade pay scale after fulfilling the conditions as provided under the rules. The relevant Clause of Schedule-IV of the Rules, 1990 is reproduced below:- “(A) for Senior Pay-scale-Asstt. Professor/Libraian/Sports Officer will be placed in senior pay-scale of Rs. 3000-5000 if he/she has (I) completed 8 years of service after regular appointment, or completed 5 years or 7 years of service in case of Ph.D. or M.Phil degree holders, respectively, (ii) participated in one orientation and one refresher course/summer institutes, each of approximately 4 weeks duration or remained associated with appropriate continuing education programmes, or comparable quality as may be specified by UGC; and (iii) consistently satisfactory performance appraisal report. (B) for Selection Grade Pay-scale- Every Assistant Professor/Sports Officer/Librarian working in senior pay-scale shall be eligible for placement in the Selection Grade Pay-scale 3700-5700, provided he/she (i) has completed 8 years of service in the senior scale. The condition of 8 years shall be relaxed in case of officers who have completed atleast 16 years and for Ph.D. and M.Phil holders 13 and 15 years respectively of service on the post of Asstt. The condition of 8 years shall be relaxed in case of officers who have completed atleast 16 years and for Ph.D. and M.Phil holders 13 and 15 years respectively of service on the post of Asstt. Professor/Sports Officer/Librarian, (ii) after posting in the senior scale has participated in two refreshers course/summer institutes each of approximately 4 weeks duration, has remained associate with approximately continuing education programmer equivalent to standards approved by UGC; and (iii) has consistently good performance appraisal reports.” 3. The petitioner has already completed the requisite service for grant of senior pay scale and since she fulfilled the criteria for grant of senior pay scale, she was granted the same by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. After reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh as State of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, the petitioner was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. The respondents have considered the case of Assistant Professors who have been granted senior pay scale grade for grant of selection grade in the year 2004 and vide order dated 08.07.2004 (Annexure RJ/P-6) and the juniors to the petitioner have been granted selection grade pay scale with effect from 27.07.1998, but the case of the petitioner has not been considered, therefore, she has filed writ petition before this Court which was registered as WPS No. 3085/2005. This Court vide its order dated 22.07.2005 was directed the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. The said order was not complied with, therefore, she filed Contempt Petition No. 101/2007 wherein it has been brought to the notice that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected in the year 2007, therefore, she filed WPS No. 7487/2007 before this Court with a prayer that the direction be issued for grant of selection grade pay scale with effect from 27.07.1998 with all consequential benefits and she be promoted on the post of Professor as her juniors have already been promoted on the post of Professors. 4. It has been further contended that the respondent in reply submitted by them in WPS No. 7487/2007 have filed Minutes of Meeting and submitted that the petitioner’s ACR was not upto the benchmark, therefore, the case of the petitioner for promotion as well as grant of selection grade has not been considered. 4. It has been further contended that the respondent in reply submitted by them in WPS No. 7487/2007 have filed Minutes of Meeting and submitted that the petitioner’s ACR was not upto the benchmark, therefore, the case of the petitioner for promotion as well as grant of selection grade has not been considered. It has been further contended by the petitioner that the ACR for the year 2000 & 2002 was not communicated to the petitioner upto 10.04.2008 as evident from Annexure P/4 thus it has lost its significance. This court was pleased to dispose of the petition vide its order dated 22.04.2015 which reads as under:- “7. The above part of the judgment of the Supreme Court makes it explicit that when the ACRs have been brought to the notice of the concerned employee, he would have right of representation for upgrading the ACR and based on decision of such representation, her case for promotion is required to be considered. 8. Therefore, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall move fresh representation before the competent authority within a period of one month from today seeking upgradation of ACR/expunction of adverse remarks, if any. The representation shall be decided considered and decided within a period of three months from the date of submission. In the event, the adverse remarks/comments are expunged and the ACR is upgraded, the petitioner’s case shall be considered in accordance with the benchmark which was applied at the time of original DPC by convening review DPC. The petitioner satisfies the benchmark, she would be entitled for selection grade/promotion from the persons junior to her were granted the benefit. The entire exercise may be completed within a period of six months from today.” 5. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court on 22-4-2015 the petitioner has preferred the representation which was not decided, therefore, she has filed Contempt Petition No. 562 of 2015. During pendency of the Contempt Petition, representation of the petitioner was rejected, therefore, this court has disposed of the Contempt Petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition challenging the order dated 2-1-2016 passed by respondent No.1. 6. During pendency of the Contempt Petition, representation of the petitioner was rejected, therefore, this court has disposed of the Contempt Petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition challenging the order dated 2-1-2016 passed by respondent No.1. 6. On the above factual foundation, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been issued without application of mind and there is no justifiable reason has been assigned to reject the prayer made by the petitioner. It has also been contended that adverse entry of the year 2000 & 2002 has lost its significance in view of the circular dated 29-11-1984 issued by the erstwhile State of MP which provides that if adverse remarks have not been communicated within three months from the date of receipt of the department, the above adverse entry will lose its significance. He would further submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vijay Shankar Pandey vs. Union of India, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 589 has also considered this issue. It has also been contended that the petitioner has received documents under Right to Information Act and it was revealed to her that on the basis of adverse ACRs, her case could not be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the adverse remarks of ACRs bias her right to consider for promotion. It has been further contended that un-communicated or delayed communicated adverse ACR after the period prescribed under the instruction, will lose its significance and would pray that the order dated 2-1-2016 (Annexure P/1) and letter dated 10-4-2008 (Annexure P/4) by which the adverse ACR has been recorded for the year 2000 & 2002, be kindly quashed. 7. The respondents have filed their return denying the allegations made in the writ petition and would submit that the impugned order dated 2-1-2016 is well merited order which needs no interference by this Court. It has been further contended that non-communication of ACR does not give any benefit to the petitioner and the said representation has rightly been rejected by them. It has also been contended that since the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of ACR of the petitioner has found unfit which cannot be found to be faulty and illegal, as such, also considering the law on the subject that interference in the decision taken by departmental promotion committee is very limited. It has also been contended that since the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of ACR of the petitioner has found unfit which cannot be found to be faulty and illegal, as such, also considering the law on the subject that interference in the decision taken by departmental promotion committee is very limited. Even the petitioner is unable to point out any arbitrariness or mala fide in the decision making process adopted by the committee, therefore, interference is not permissible and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The petitioner has filed rejoinder denying the allegations made in this writ petition and it has been contended that as per Rule 8(d), promotion of any officer cannot be declined only on the ground that the officer has not completed refresher course or orientation course within the time period or extended time period. It has been further contended that the Principal of college was not allowing the petitioner to participate in the refresher course despite the opportunity granted for attending refresher course by various institutions a detailed in the rejoinder and lastly she was allowed the participate in refresher course on 01.07.1999 to 28.07.1999. The petitioner has also highlighted the alleged mala fide against the Principal to substantiate that she has subjected to harassment by the Principal. It has been further contended that the petitioner cannot suffer due to fault on the part of the department, therefore, she should be granted selection grade pay scale as well as promotion on the post of Professor. Learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his arguments, has relied upon the judgment of Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee vs Union of India, reported in 1991 (suppl) 92) SCC 363 and State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1133 . 9. The matter was listed before this court on various occasions and various directions were issued by this court. This court after hearing the parties passed the following order on 11-5-2023. “The State/respondents are directed to re-examine the order, by which the petitioner’s representation has been rejected in terms of circular and law with regard to the communication of ACR and pass reasoned order”. 10. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction given by this court, the State has again examined the matter and has rejected the claim of the petitioner. “The State/respondents are directed to re-examine the order, by which the petitioner’s representation has been rejected in terms of circular and law with regard to the communication of ACR and pass reasoned order”. 10. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction given by this court, the State has again examined the matter and has rejected the claim of the petitioner. Thereafter, this matter was listed before this court on 15-6-2023 and on that day the State counsel has made a submission before this court that they will re-examine the matter afresh within ten days and thereafter this case was listed on 28-6-2023. The State has examined the matter and has submitted compliance report of order dated 15-6-2023 on 26-6-2023 wherein they have admitted in para 5.8 of the order that in view of the Re-organization of the State of Chhattisgarh, adverse CR of the petitioner could not be communicated in the year 2000 and 2002 and when this matter was brought to the notice of the petitioner, it was communicated on 10-4-2008 and the petitioner was directed to submit reply but the petitioner has not submitted her reply and thereafter in compliance of the order passed by this court on 22-4-2015 the case of the petitioner was re-examined and on the basis of adverse ACR and the evaluation of the work done by the petitioner, there was no justifiable reason to delete the adverse ACR and to upgrade the same. It has also been contended in the order that the circular dated 29-11-1984 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The petitioner in her petition and rejoinder has specifically taken a stand that adverse ACRs of the year 1999-2000, 2001-2002 which are adverse have not been communicated to her and in fact it has been communicated on 10.04.2008. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The petitioner in her petition and rejoinder has specifically taken a stand that adverse ACRs of the year 1999-2000, 2001-2002 which are adverse have not been communicated to her and in fact it has been communicated on 10.04.2008. This fact has not been denied in the return filed by the State and in the order dated 26.06.2023 passed by the respondent, it has been stated that the petitioner has completed orientation course from 8-11-2002 to 20-11-2002, second orientation course from 2-12-2002 to 31-12-2002 and the petitioner was granted senior pay scale 27.07.1998, therefore, she is eligible to be considered for grant of selection grade on 27.07.2003 and as per the requirement of the rules apart from five years completion of service, the candidate should have five years consistently good appraisal report. Since the ACR for the year 2000 & 2002 was not upto benchmark, therefore, she has been given selection grade from 27.07.2007 as per the ACR. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to get selection grade pay scale from 27.07.2007 only which has been granted to the petitioner. 13. From the above factual matrix and stand taken by the respondents, it is quite vivid that adverse ACR which was for the year 2000 & 2002 were not upto the benchmark, is foundation of the respondent for not granting the selection grade to the petitioner. It is also undisputed fact that the adverse ACR of the petitioner has not been communicated to the petitioner within the stipulated time period prescribed in the circular issued by the Government and it was communicated in the year 2008 after about 6–7 years while filing of the return in WPS No. 7487/2007. 14. From the above factual matrix, the point to be determined by this Court is “whether the ACR which has not been communicated for about 8-9 years has been communicated on 10.04.2008, can have adversely affected over the career of the petitioner?” 15. It is not in dispute that ACRs which have adversely affected have not been communicated within the stipulated time period provided under the instructions issued by the Government on 29.11.1984. It is not in dispute that ACRs which have adversely affected have not been communicated within the stipulated time period provided under the instructions issued by the Government on 29.11.1984. The relevant portion of the circular reads as under:- ^^fo"k; & xksiuh; pfj=koyh esa vafdr çfrdwy Vhdk,a rhu ekg esa lwfpr u djus ij bu Vhdkvksa dk vfLrRo ugha gSA 1- xksiuh; pfj=koyh esa vafdr çfrdwy fVdk;sa fcuk foyEc ds lwfpr djus rFkk bu çfrdwy vH;qfDr;ksa ds fo#) çkIr vH;kosnuksa ij le;&lhek esa dk;Zokgh djus ds laca/k esa bl foHkkx ds Kkiu Øekad 465@448@1@3@74] fnukad 15-7-1974 rFkk Kkiu Øekad 2@1180@dkŒÁŒlqŒ@1@78] fnukad 4-1-1979 }kjk iwoZ esa foLr`r funsZ'k tkjh fd;s x;s gSa ftuesa bldk Li"V mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd lcaf/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dh xksiuh; pfj=koyh dh çkfIr dh rkjh[k ls ,d ekg ds Hkhrj ;fn blesa dksbZ çfrdwy vH;qfDr gks] rks lalwfpr dh tkuh pkfg,A lkFk gh xksiuh; pfj=koyh esa vafdr çfrdwy vH;qfDr;ka fu/kkZfjr le; ds Hkhrj lalwfpr u fd;s tkus ij foyEc ds fy, nks"kh ik;s x;s vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa ds fo#) vko';d dk;Zokgh Hkh fd;s tkus ds funsZ'k fn;s x;s gSA 2- 'kklu }kjk xfBr eaf=ifj"kn~ dh milfefr us vuq'kalk dh gS fd xksiuh; pfj=koyh esa vafdr foijhr Vhdk;sa çkfIr dh rkjh[k ls 3 ekg esa lalwfpr dh tk;sa vU;Fkk ;g ekuk tk,xk fd foijhr Vhdkvksa dk vfLrRo ugha gSA ;g Hkh vuq'kalk dh x;h gS fd tks vf/kdkjh lalwfpr ugha djrk gS mlds f[kykQ dk;Zokgh dh tk,A 'kklu us milfefr dh vuq'kalk dks ekU; dj fy;k gSA vr% ftl dk;kZy; esa xksiuh; pfj=kofy;ka j[kh tkrh gSa ml dk;kZy; ds çeq[k vf/kdkjh dk mÙkjnkf;Ro gS fd ;g foijhr Vhdkvksa dks xksiuh; pfj=koyh çkfIr ds fnukad ls rhu ekg ds Hkhrj lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh dks lalwfpr djsaA ;fn bl laca/k esa dk;Zokgh le; ij ugha dh tkrh gS rks nks"kh vf/kdkfj;ksa ds f[kykQ dk;Zokgh dh tk;sA ;fn fdUgha vifjgk;Z dkj.kksa ls çfrdwy Vhdk,a fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa lalwfpr ugha dh tk ldh gSa rks iw.kZ vkSfpR; ds lkFk lkekU; ç'kklu foHkkx dk vuqeksnu çkIr fd;k vkSj mlds i'pkr~ xksiuh; foijhr Vhdkvksa dks lalwfpr djus dh vkxs dk;Zokgh dh tk,A 3- bu funsZ'kksa dk vkids v/khu foHkkxksa esa dM+kbZ ls ikyu ds funsZ'k —i;k çlkfjr djsa vkSj bl v)Z'kkldh; i= dh çkfIr dh vfHkLoh—fr Hkh fHktok;saA** 16. From bare perusal of the circular, it is quite vivid that the ACR should be communicated within stipulated time period otherwise the very object of ACR will be frustrated and it will lose its significance. The effect of non-communication of ACR within time has also been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General of Police and another, reported in 1987 SCC 602 wherein it has been held at paragraph 13 & 14 as under:- “13. Before we part with this appeal, we may dispose of another contention of the respondent about the delay in communicating to him the impugned adverse remarks. Under Rule 5 of the Rules, a confidential report assessing the performances, character, conduct and qualities of every member of the service shall be written for each financial year, or calendar year, as may be specified by the Government, ordinarily within two months of the close of the said year. Rule 6 provides that the confidential report shall be reviewed by the reviewing authority ordinarily within one month of its being written. Under Rule 6A, the confidential report, after review, shall be accepted with such modifications as may be considered necessary, and countersigned by the accepting authority, ordinarily within one month of its review. Thus, the whole process from the writing of the confidential report to the acceptance thereof has to be completed ordinarily within a maximum period of four months. Further, under Rule 7 the adverse remarks, if any, in a confidential report shall be communicated to the officer concerned within three months of the receipt of the confidential report. Thus, a total period of seven months has been laid down as the maximum period within which adverse remarks, if any, has to be communicated to the officer concerned. It has been already noticed that the adverse remarks were sent to the respondent after two years three months, that is, after twenty seven months of the close of the year. It is submitted by the respondent that in view of the delayed communication the adverse remarks lost all importance and should be struk down on that ground. 14. The whole object of the making and communication of adverse remarks is to give to the officer concerned an opportunity to improve his performance, conduct or character, as the case may. It is submitted by the respondent that in view of the delayed communication the adverse remarks lost all importance and should be struk down on that ground. 14. The whole object of the making and communication of adverse remarks is to give to the officer concerned an opportunity to improve his performance, conduct or character, as the case may. The adverse remarks should not be understood in terms of punishment, but really it should be taken as an advice to the officer concerned, so that he can act in accordance with the advice and improve his service career. The whole object of the making of adverse remarks would be lost if they are communicated to the officer concerned after an inordinate delay. In the instant case, it was communicated to the respondent after twenty seven months. It is true that the provisions of Rules 5, 6, 6A and 7 are directory and not mandatory, but that does not mean that the directory provisions need not be complied with even substantially. Such provisions may not be complied with strictly, and substantial compliance will be sufficient. But, where compliance after an inordinate delay would be against the spirit and object of the directory provision, such compliance would not be substantial compliance. In the instant case, while the provisions of Rules 5, 6, 6A and 7 require that everything including the communication of the adverse remarks should be completed within a period of seven months, this period cannot be stretched to twenty seven months, simply because these Rules are directory, without serving any purpose consistent with the spirit and objectives of these Rules. We need not, however, dilate upon the question any more and consider whether on the ground of inordinate and unreasonable delay, the adverse remarks against the respondent should be struck down or not, and suffice it to say that we do not approve of the inordinate delay made in communicating the adverse remarks to the respondent.” 17. The erstwhile Government of Madhya Pradesh has issued circular dated 08.08.1977 regarding action to be taken with regard to communication of adverse ACR and has given time schedule to examine the representation, which provides three months from the date of receipt of representation. This circular is still in force in the State of Chhattisgarh in view of Section 78 & 79 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. This circular is still in force in the State of Chhattisgarh in view of Section 78 & 79 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. The relevant provision of the circular reads as under:- ^^fo"k; & deZpkfj;ksa dh xksiuh; pfj=kofy;ksa esa vafdr çfrdwy Vhdkvksa ds fo#) çLrqr vH;kosnuksa ij dk;ZokghA 4- jkT; 'kklu ds ;g ns[kus esa vk;k gS fd deZpkfj;ksa dh xksiuh; pfj=kofy;ksa esa vafdr çfrdwy Vhdk,a le; ij lalwfpr djus rFkk muds fo#) çLrqr vH;kosnu ds fuiVkjs ds laca/k esa 'kklu }kjk vko';d vkns'k fn;s tkus ds ckotwn lacaf/kr deZpkfj;ksa dh çfrdwy Vhdk,a le; ij lalwfpr djus rFkk muds fo#) fn, vH;kosnuksa ij fu.kZ; ysus ds dk;Z esa vuko';d foyEc gks tkrk gS vkSj 'kklu ds vkns'kksa dk ikyu ugha gksrk ftlls deZpkfj;ksa dks dkQh vlqfo/kk dk lkeuk djuk iM+rk gSA 5- Áfrosnu dh tkap vkSj mlds fuiVkjs dh vafre rkjh[k & Áfrfuosnu dh ÁkfIr dh rkjh[k ls rhu ekg ds HkhrjA** 18. The State of Madhya Pradesh has also issued circular dated 04.01.1979 which provides procedure to be adopted on the representation and according to the clause 5 of the circular, it is mandatory for the authorities not only seek comment on the person who has written the CR but the Government is required to verify the records and documents to justify whether written of adverse CR is justified or not. The petitioner in pursuance of order passed on 22.04.2015 by this Court in WPS No. 7487/2007 has submitted detailed representation wherein at paragraph 18 of her representation, she has put specific allegation against Principal J.K. Verma, Dr. D. Dey Incharge Principal and R.N. Saxena and also annexed the relevant document, but the respondent/State while rejecting the representation dated 02.01.2016 has not assigned any reason to demonstrate that the ACR was written in objective manner and also there is no whisper about what are the consideration before recording such ACR, is placed on record which is mandatory on the part of the competent authority to consider. Thus, the respondent while deciding the representation has not considered the direction given by the Government in its circular dated 04.01.1979. Thus, the respondent while deciding the representation has not considered the direction given by the Government in its circular dated 04.01.1979. This circular is still in force in the State of Chhattisgarh in view of Section 78 & 79 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 The relevant part of the circular reads as under:- ^^fo"k; & vf/kdkfj;ksa dh xksiuh; pfj=kofy;ksa esa vafdr çfrdwy Vhdkvksa ds fo#) çLrqr vH;kosnuksa ij dkjZokbZA ¼ikap½ tc dHkh çfrdwy fVIi.kh ds fo#) dksbZ vH;kosnu fd;k tk;s rks] dsoy ;gh i;kZIr gksxk fd fjiksVZ fy[kus okys vf/kdkjh ls ;g iwNk tk;s fd ,slh fVIi.kh dk vk/kkj D;k gSA er nsus okys vf/kdkjh dks pkfg, fd og lacaf/kr vH;kosnu ij viuk er] er çkIr ds fy;s Hksts x;s i= dh çkfIr dh frfFk ls ,d ekg ds Hkhrj Hkst nsA ;fn lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh fdlh dkj.ko'k mÙkj Hkstus ds fy;s dqN vf/kd le; pkgrs gSa rks mUgsa rn~uqlkj le;kof/k cढ+kus ds vkns'k çkIr dj ysuk pkfg,A lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh dks fjiksVZ çkIr gksus ij 'kklu lEc) nLrkost vkSj vfHkys[k ns[kdj bl ckr ls viuk lek/kku djsxk fd fVIi.kh iw.kZr% U;k;ksfpr gS ;k ughaA ;fn 'kklu dk bl ckr ls lek/kku gks tk;s fd fVIi.kh U;k;ksfpr gS rks vf/kdkjh dks rnuqlkj lwfpr fd;k tkuk pkfg, vkSj mldk vH;kosnu jn~n dj fn;k tkuk pkfg,A rFkkfi ;fn ,slk ns[kus esa vk;s fd çfrdwy fVIi.kh ds fo#) fd;s x;s vH;kosnu ls vf/kdkjh dh Lo;a dks lq/kkjus dks vfuPNk çdV gksrh gS vkSj ;g fd ftu lq/kkjksa dh vksj /;ku vkdf"kZr fd;k x;k Fkk] mudks mlus vPNh Hkkouk ls ugha fy;k gS rks mls rn~uqlkj lwfpr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A bl i= dks ,d çfr xksiuh; futh Qkby esa j[k nh tkuh pkfg,A ;fn l{ke çkf/kdkjh vH;kosnuksa dks fjiksVZ dh lw{e tkap djus ij bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaps fd çfrdwy fVIi.kh U;k;ksfpr ugha Fkh] nqHkkZouk ls çsfjr Fkh ;k iw.kZr% xyr vFkok fujk/kkj Fkh ;k vçkf/k—r Fkh vkSj blfy, mls fudky fn;k tkuk pkfg, rks ml fVIi.kh dks dkV nsuk pkfg, vkSj ml ij dkxt fpidk nsuk pkfg, ;k mls vU; çdkj ls feVk nsuk pkfg, vkSj ml ij ;g fy[kdj fd mlus ,slk fd;k gS vius gLrk{kj dj fnukad Mky nsuk pkfg,A jktif=r vf/kdkfj;ksa ds ekeys esa foyksiu dh dkjZokbZ de ls de voj lfpo Lrj ds vf/kdkjh }kjk dh tkuh pkfg,A vH;kosnu dh tkap vkSj mldk fuiVkjk mldh çkfIr dks rkjh[k ls rhu ekg ds Hkhrj gks tkuk pkfg,A** 19. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2060 held that “it is a settled principle that an un-communicated adverse report should not form the foundation to deny benefits to a Government servant when similar benefits are extended to his juniors”. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in catena of decisions has considered the effect of non-communication of ACR right from the case of Devdutt vs. Union of India and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 . Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others vs. G.R. Meghwal, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1291 has held in para 30 which read as under:- “30. Therefore, in view of the above and in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that though the respondent was graded as “Very Good” in the ACRs for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and was graded only “Good” in the ACR for the year 2007-2008 by the very same reporting and reviewing officer, despite the fact that specifically the respondent was given the opportunity against the ACR for the year 2007-2008. However, no valid reasons are given for rejecting the representation, we are of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned Tribunal and the High Court have not committed any error in directing the Department to call for a review meeting of the Screening Committee to re-assess the suitability of the respondent for the purpose of grant of SAG and while doing so to exclude the ACR for the year 2007-2008. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference of this Court is called for.” 20. Hon’ble the Supreme Court again in the matter of R.K. Jibanlata Devi vs. High Court of Manipur through its Registrar General and others reported in 2023 live-law (SC) 139 has held in 6.4 and 6.7 which reads as under:- 6.4 In the present case the petitioner got “Good” gradings for the year 2016-17 and received “Very Good” gradings in her ACRs for the years 2017-18 and 2018-2019. It was the specific case on behalf of the petitioner which has not been denied that the ACRs grading of “Good” for the year 2016-17 was never communicated to the petitioner even till the DPC met. It was the specific case on behalf of the petitioner which has not been denied that the ACRs grading of “Good” for the year 2016-17 was never communicated to the petitioner even till the DPC met. Therefore, as per the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions more particularly, as observed and held by this Court in Rukhsana Shaheen Khan (supra); Sukhdev Singh (supra) and Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and Ors, (2008) 8 SCC 725 un-communicated adverse ACRs may be even with “Good” entry which can be said to be adverse in the context of eligibility for promotion is not to be relied upon for consideration of promotion. Therefore, un-communicated ACR for the year 2016-17 having the grading “Good” could not have been relied upon for consideration for promotion. 6.7 The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion would be that as the ACR Grading of “Good” for the year 2016-17 was not communicated till the DPC met, the same is to be ignored and/ or be not relied upon for consideration of promotion. Similarly, the grading for the year 2019-2020 also is to be excluded and/or be not relied upon for consideration for promotion as the same was communicated on 08.04.2021 and the petitioner was granted 15 days’ time to make representation and before the representation could be made the DPC met on 09.04.2021 and considered the case of the petitioner for promotion”. 21. Since the ACR of the petitioner was not communicated within the stipulated time period and as per the circular dated 29.11.1984 and the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of P.C. Wadhwa (supra), it has lost its significance. 21. Since the ACR of the petitioner was not communicated within the stipulated time period and as per the circular dated 29.11.1984 and the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of P.C. Wadhwa (supra), it has lost its significance. It is also established from the record that the respondent while deciding the representation of the petitioner for expunging the adverse ACR has not followed the procedure as prescribed in the circular dated 04.01.1979 and also considering the fact that ACR was not communicated within the time period, which has adversely affected the carrier of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent on 2-1-2016 (Annexure P/1) and entry made in the confidential report dated 10.04.2008 (Annexure P/4) to record the ACR of the petitioner as “C” (poor) and all the subsequent orders which have been passed in pursuance of the direction given by this court on 26-6-2023 (Annexure R/2) and decision taken by the committed dated 02-6-2023, which has been taken in pursuance of order dated 11.05.2023, wherein this court has directed State to re-examine the order by which petitioner’s representation has been rejected, are quashed. 22. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of selection grade pay with effect from 27.07.1998 and for that a review Screening Committee for grant of selection grade to the petitioner be constituted within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is also directed that since ACR for the period in question has lost its significance as such respondents are also directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion on the post of Professor within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order when juniors to the petitioner have been considered for promotion. 23. In view of the above, the instant writ petition (s) is allowed. 24. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.