JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs: “17. The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction. (A) Quashing and setting aside the letter dt.17.12.2013 and order dt.24.4.2014, communicating and maintaining the adverse remarks for the period from 1.4.2012 to 22.12.2012. (A1) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call upon the Respondent Authorities to produce the original copy of the Confidential Report for the year 2012-13, which clearly indicates how the same has been tampered with; (A2) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the communications dated 23.09.2016 and 26.09.2016 from the Jt. Director of Technical Education confirming the adverse remarks against the Petitioner for the years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015; (A3) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to expunge the adverse remarks made against the Petitioner for three successive years from 2012-13 to 2014-15 and allot the same numbers of marks as given by the reporting Officer in Performance Appraisal Report of 2014-15.” (A4) Your Lordships may be pleased to award the costs of the Petition to the Petitioner; (B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the Respondents may be restrained from acting upon the adverse remarks communicated vide letter dt.17.12.2013 for any purpose. (C) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper.” 2. The petitioner herein has challenged the adverse remarks in the confidential report of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2012 to 22.12.2012 communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 17.12.2013. Pending the present petition, by way of amendment, the petitioner has challenged the adverse remarks in the confidential report for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15 communicated to the petitioner on 23.09.2016 and 26.09.2016 respectively from the Joint Director of Technical Education – respondent No.3 herein; confirming the said adverse remarks. 2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid adverse remarks for the aforesaid period were never communicated to the petitioner herein within stipulated time. Reliance is placed on the Government Resolution dated 31.03.1989; duly produced at Annexure – F, page 45, more particularly, Clause 11 of the said Resolution whereby, such adverse remarks are required to be communicated to the employee within a period of six weeks. Reliance is placed on the Government Resolution dated 31.03.1989; duly produced at Annexure – F, page 45, more particularly, Clause 11 of the said Resolution whereby, such adverse remarks are required to be communicated to the employee within a period of six weeks. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid Clause – 11 has been given a go back by the respondent authorities by issuing communication/notice to the petitioner on 17.12.2013; which is duly produced at Annexure – A. 2.2 It is also the case of the petitioner that being communicated with the aforesaid communication, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 15.01.2014 to the respondent authorities, which came to be rejected by the impugned communications dated 06.03.2014 and 24.04.2014 duly produced at Annexure – C, page 35 and Annexure – E, page 43 respectively. Being aggrieved by the impugned communications by the Deputy Director, Technical Education, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present petition mainly, on the ground that the aforesaid adverse remarks in the confidential report which are communicated to the petitioner, are beyond a period of six weeks and in view thereof, the said are be directed not to be taken into consideration. 3. Heard Mr. Anupam V. Uchat for Dr. Ganeshwary Dushyantkumar Shah, learned party-in-person for the petitioner herein and Ms. Suman Motla, learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. 4. Mr. Anupam V. Uchat, learned party-in-person appearing for the petitioner, relied on the grounds stated in the present petition and submitted that the State Government has issued a Resolution dated 31.03.1989 laying down the guidelines regarding writing, maintaining, communicating the adverse remarks in the annual confidential reports of the employees; duly produced at Annexure – F. Placing reliance on the said Resolution, it is submitted that once such remarks are not communicated within a period of six weeks, the same are liable to be quashed and set aside. Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down in 19 G.L.R. 1021 in case of B.R. Kulkarni vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., wherein, it is held that if the adverse remarks are not in consonance with the guidelines laid down by the State Government in a Resolution, the same are liable to be quashed and set aside. Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down in 19 G.L.R. 1021 in case of B.R. Kulkarni vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., wherein, it is held that if the adverse remarks are not in consonance with the guidelines laid down by the State Government in a Resolution, the same are liable to be quashed and set aside. 4.1 Placing reliance on the aforesaid Resolution dated 31.03.1989, it is also submitted that the Reviewing Officer has to give independent opinion while reviewing the entries in the confidential report. It is also submitted that the Reviewing Officer has failed to follow the directions issued in paragraph 3 of the said Resolution and hence, the impugned adverse remarks are vitiated. It is submitted that the aforesaid Resolution also provides that once such adverse remarks are communicated within six weeks, the representation is required to be made within a period of six weeks thereafter. In the facts of the present case, admittedly, such adverse remarks are communicated to the petitioner only on 17.12.2013 for the period from 01.04.2012 to 22.12.2012 i.e. after a period of one year. It is submitted that the adverse remarks for the year 2013-14 were communicated to the petitioner on 01.07.2016 i.e. after a period of two years and for the year 2014-15 were communicated to the petitioner on 14.12.2016 i.e. after a period of four months. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that if there is no adverse entry for the last five years in the confidential reports of an employee, the Reporting Officer or the Reviewing Officer to produce the proof of such adverse entry and the same should be entered with due care and caution. It is submitted that such procedure is not followed in the case of the present petitioner. It is submitted that in light of the aforesaid, the adverse remarks are required to be quashed and set aside. 4.2 Mr. Uchat, learned party-in-person, submitted that the Circular dated 06.03.2004 is also breached while communicating the adverse remarks. It is submitted that the said Circular provides that one of the alternative four adjectives is to be used for assessment of confidential reports of employee except; 1) outstanding 2) very good 3) good 4) unfit, no other words are to be used. In the facts of the present case, none of the four alternatives are used. It is submitted that the said Circular provides that one of the alternative four adjectives is to be used for assessment of confidential reports of employee except; 1) outstanding 2) very good 3) good 4) unfit, no other words are to be used. In the facts of the present case, none of the four alternatives are used. Such words are absent in the communication dated 17.12.2013 and in view thereof also, such adverse remarks are required to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted that the Reporting Officer of the petitioner was Shri D.S. Dave (Principal). The Reviewing Officer was Shri P.R. Dave (Joint Director). The Reviewing Officer communicated the adverse remarks written by the Reporting Officer. The petitioner made her representation on 15.01.2014 to the Joint Director, Mr. P.R. Dave. The said representation of the petitioner is rejected by Shri K.R. Parmar, who is Deputy Director, Technical Education. The post of Deputy Director, Technical Education is lower than that of Joint Director, Technical Education. Thus, the representation of the petitioner is decided by the lower authority, who is Deputy Director and hence, the aforesaid suffers from the non- application of mind on behalf of the respondents in deciding representation of the petitioner. 4.3 Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that the prayers, as prayed for in the present petition, be allowed and the adverse remarks for the period between 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, Ms. Suman Motla, learned AGP appearing for the respondents, submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned orders passed by the respondent authority. It is submitted that if there is some delay in proceeding, it would not straightaway mean that the adverse remarks or entries loose its existence. It is submitted that by communication dated 17.12.2013, the adverse remarks were communicated and thereafter, the representation dated 15.01.2014 was considered, the same was placed before the Reviewing Officer i.e. Joint Director and thereafter, the Commissioner took the decision and by way of communication dated 06.03.2014, the said decision was informed to the petitioner. It is submitted that from 01.04.2012 to 22.12.2012, the petitioner had not worked properly and has put in difficulty the head of the department by improper work and conduct for which, the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 05.07.2013, which was replied to by the petitioner on 24.07.2013. It is submitted that from 01.04.2012 to 22.12.2012, the petitioner had not worked properly and has put in difficulty the head of the department by improper work and conduct for which, the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 05.07.2013, which was replied to by the petitioner on 24.07.2013. In view thereof, on 30.03.2013, the petitioner and her brother entered into scuffle and physical abuse and for that, the University Police Station was also informed. Reliance is placed on show cause notice dated 05.07.2013. 5.1 Ms. Motla, learned AGP, submitted that it cannot be said that such adverse remarks for the year 2012 and 2013, are not proper. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that no interference is called for, for the prayers as prayed for, in the present petition. 6. Mr. Anupam V. Uchat, learned party-in-person, in rejoinder, reiterated the contentions raised earlier and submitted that the case of the petitioner is governed by the Government Resolution dated 31.03.1989 and the decision rendered in 19 G.L.R. 1021 in case of B.R. Kulkarni vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.. Analysis:- 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that the petitioner herein is serving as In-charge Head of Department at Government Polytechnic, Ahmedabad. The petitioner was appointed as direct recruit Lecturer, Department of Plastic Engineering, Government Polytechnic, Ahmedabad on 22.11.1993. 8. In the course of hearing, Ms. Suman Motla, learned AGP appearing for the respondents, has placed on record order passed in Special Civil Application No.9250 of 2013 wherein, the petitioner herein had prayed for a direction commanding the respondents to fill up the post of the Head of Department, Plastic Engineering, Government Polytechnic, Ahmedabad, by promotion and to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the said post and to appoint the petitioner as Head of Department, Department of Plastic Engineering, Government Polytechnic, Ahmedabad, with deemed date of 09.08.1998. 8.1 By order dated 01.12.2015, the said petition being Special Civil Application No.9250 of 2013 came to be allowed wherein, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as the Head of Department, Plastic Engineering, Government Polytechnic, Ahmedabad, with deemed date of 09.08.1998. 8.1 By order dated 01.12.2015, the said petition being Special Civil Application No.9250 of 2013 came to be allowed wherein, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as the Head of Department, Plastic Engineering, Government Polytechnic, Ahmedabad, with deemed date of 09.08.1998. The said order was subject matter of challenge by filing Letters Patent Appeal No.128 of 2016 wherein, by order dated 18.02.2020, the order passed in Special Civil Application No.9250 of 2013 came to be modified whereby, the period of ad-hoc appointment was directed not to be considered at the time of considering the seniority and promotion. Rest of the order passed in Special Civil Application No.9250 of 2013 dated 01.12.2015 remains as it is. 9. In the course of hearing, Mr. Anupam V. Uchat, learned party-in-person, submitted that the said order is also not implemented by the respondent authorities. 10. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the Government Resolution dated 31.03.1989 laying down the guidelines regarding writing, maintaining, communicating etc. the adverse remarks in the annual confidential reports of the employee. It is apposite to Clause – 3, Clause – 6, Clause – 11, which read thus: (true translation) “3. The Reviewing Officer shall review the report written by the Reporting Officer. The important factor in this process is that, the Reporting Officer must not hold the capacity of Reviewing Officer. The officer holding the superior post than the Reporting Officer must be the Reviewing Officer. The Reporting Officer shall, after writing the Report, send the report to his immediate superior officer-Reviewing Officer. If there are large number of officers subordinate to the Reviewing Officer, he obviously would not have personal information regarding the work of each officer. Despite being in such situation, it is inherent part of the duty of the Reviewing Officer to review the report of each officer. Though the opinion of the Reporting Officer is mostly appropriate, sometimes such opinion may not be proper and complete. The procedure to review the Report is important. Because, the status of the review in the process of writing the report is in fact based on the level of independent opinion. That, there remains the scope to avoid the malicious intention and error of human opinion of the Reporting Officer. The procedure to review the Report is important. Because, the status of the review in the process of writing the report is in fact based on the level of independent opinion. That, there remains the scope to avoid the malicious intention and error of human opinion of the Reporting Officer. If the process of reviewing is carried out stereotyped or mechanical way, the very object of the process may not be fulfilled. Even if the Reviewing Officer does not have personal knowledge of the work of the officer whose Report has been written, the adverse remarks shall be approved after verifying the facts of the adverse remarks made in the report, because if the Reviewing Officer approves the adverse remarks, such remarks become valid. If the Reviewing Officer does not have the knowledge of the work of the officer whose report has been written, the Reviewing Officer shall clearly mention such fact. The superficial/incomplete review is a very serious matter. And therefore, if the superficial/incomplete review is found to have been done by the Reviewing Officer, such fact shall be properly mentioned in the report of such Reviewing Officer. It is the duty of the Reviewing Officer to give his independent opinion at the time of reviewing the report. If the Reviewing Officer has agreed or disagreed with the opinion mentioned in the report, the Reviewing Officer shall clearly mentioned such fact. If the report of the Reporting Officer is not showing the clear and satisfactory description of the efficiency, quality and lapses of the officer/employee under report, the Reviewing Officer shall have to give his detailed opinion clearly. When the Reporting Officer has given adverse report regarding efficiency and conduct, the Reviewing Officer should carefully give his opinion in this regard. Some heads of the Department review the confidential reports of his subordinate employees working under his control on the basis of the report written by the subordinate Officers wherein the head of the department has no occasion to know about the work of the employee whose report has been written. Under such circumstances, the Reviewing Officer shall clearly mention at the time of reviewing that, the review report has been prepared on the basis of the report of the Reporting Officer. Under such circumstances, the Reviewing Officer shall clearly mention at the time of reviewing that, the review report has been prepared on the basis of the report of the Reporting Officer. (3- A) Accepting Authority: If the Officer superior to the Reviewing Officer has an occasion to see the work of the person whose report has been written and if he is of the opinion by the valid and sufficient reasons that, the evaluation or the review written by the Reporting Officer and/or Reviewing Officer is not completely impartial, he can add the special remarks as he deems fit. (6) Procedure of writing the confidential report: Overall assessment is to be done on the basis of the opinion of the Reporting Officer. Please do not use stereotyped expressions like 'fair', 'average', 'ordinary', 'normal', 'maintainable' in the grading report. Despite that, if any of the aforesaid adjective is used for grading, the same is not to be considered as the adverse remark. Consequently, if the Reporting Officer writes the aforesaid stereotyped phrases, such remark is not to be considered as adverse remark. Despite that, for the grading of the Class- I Officers, where functional quality is expected, specification is required in that regard. In their cases, such procedures, which is clearly not considered as adverse, are necessary to bring to their attention which can be useful in increasing their efficiency. Therefore, the Government has decided that, if the aforesaid phrases have been used in the confidential report of the Class- I Officers, the same is to be communicated to them and clearly inform them that, such remark is not considered as adverse opinion, but, the same is being brought to their attention so that they can perform better. In this connection, it is also necessary to clarify that, any representation against such information will not be taken into consideration, because, such remark has not been considered as adverse opinion. At the time of writing remark in any column of the confidential report by the Reporting Officer or Reviewing Officer, if the objective of the officers is to consider it as adverse, that Officers have to clearly make note that, this remark is to be considered as adverse remark. However, the decision of the Government will remain final as to whether same is to be considered or not considered as adverse remark. However, the decision of the Government will remain final as to whether same is to be considered or not considered as adverse remark. Information regarding adverse remark made in confidential report is to be communicated to the concerned Officer in the proforma stipulated in circular dated 10/02/1978 of the General Administration Department within the stipulated time limit without fail. (11) Regarding reporting of adverse remark made in the report: In case of adverse remark regarding defect, efficiency etc. in the performance is made in the report, the employee should not be kept unaware about the same. Such adverse remark should be communicated to the employee within six weeks after completion of the procedure of report in the respective year. Adverse remark should be communicated by the officer having charge of reports. Various administrative departments have to pass clear orders to inform the adverse remarks made in the confidential reports of the employees/officers of the departments/offices under their control. Upon completion of the process of the writing, reviewing and counter-signing the report, the officer having the charge of the report, has to communicate about adverse remark. The adverse remark is required to be communicated with the signature of the officer having charge of the report or with the signature of an authorized officer, generally, having one level high rank than that of whose report is written. In addition to communicating adverse remarks, also summarize good remarks of the report, however, no adverse remarks regarding honesty is required to be communicated. Communicate improvements in performance, against the defects found in the previous year report. Adverse remark should be communicated within six weeks on completion of report in the form prescribed by Resolution dated 10/02/1978 of the General Administrative Department. The concerned employee/officer can make representation within six weeks against the adverse remark made in his/her confidential report. The said time-limit can be extended by the competent officer on the merits of the case, if sufficient and reasonable grounds appear for not making representation within six weeks. The final decision on the representation of adverse remark, shall be made by the competent officer within three months of the date of receipt of representation. Final decision of such representation is to be taken by the officer one level higher to the reviewing officer. The final decision on the representation of adverse remark, shall be made by the competent officer within three months of the date of receipt of representation. Final decision of such representation is to be taken by the officer one level higher to the reviewing officer. Letter communicating the adverse remarks should be sent by R.P.A.D. letter and entry shall be made in the confidential report file regarding communicating about adverse remark that ' Adverse remark is communicated vide Letter No. ……. dated……. '. Before communicating serious kind of adverse remark made in the report of the concerned year to the employee who has consistently received good reports in previous years, adverse remark of the concerned year and remarks of the previous year reports should be considered carefully, so that it can be decided as to whether assessment of the report to be placed in good level or to obtain clarification regarding adverse remark. The method mentioned below should be adopted to communicate about the adverse remark made in the report:- No question arises to communicate if any adverse remark is not made. If the adverse remark is made regarding the defects that can be improved or cannot be improved, it should be communicated with the essence of entire report, good performance etc., however, no adverse remark regarding honesty is required to be communicated. If the employee has made an efforts to improve the defects mentioned in the previous year report, the same should be communicated to the concerned employee and one copy thereof should be kept in the file of report. While communicating the adverse remark, it is not mandatory to mention the name of the officer who has made such adverse remark. The adverse remark made by the reporting officer, which is not approved by the reviewing officer or the higher officer, is not to be communicated, but the adverse remark which is approved is only required to be communicated as it is or with corrections. Serious kind of defects or constant defects should be communicated in written, but minor defect should be communicated orally. The reviewing officer should decide the same at his/her discretion. In some cases, reputation/designation of the officer concerned should also be taken into consideration while communicating about adverse remark, so that communication of adverse remark does not make adverse effect but the good effect. The reviewing officer should decide the same at his/her discretion. In some cases, reputation/designation of the officer concerned should also be taken into consideration while communicating about adverse remark, so that communication of adverse remark does not make adverse effect but the good effect. Communicating adverse remarks of the more senior and sensitive officers should be made from the level of the government or the level of the head of the department. In other cases, written information should be communicated by the reviewing officer and oral information should be communicated by the reporting officer or reviewing officer, whichever is convenient. Adverse remarks of the officers of All India Service, the District Superintendent of Police or state police service officers equivalent to it, should be communicated by the Principal Secretary. Adverse remarks to the head of the other department shall be communicated by the secretary of the concerned department with approval of the Principal Secretary. If the communication regarding adverse remark is made orally or in written, copy or note thereof should be kept in the file of reports. Original report should not be disclosed before the concerned officer, or his/her signature acknowledging receipt of adverse remark should not be obtained on the original report. Following procedure should be undertaken for the representation made by the concerned employee against adverse remark: The reviewing officer higher officer should verify the representation. Obtain opinion of the reporting officer and reviewing officer, if required. Such authority shall be considered competent to undertake the procedure for such representation. If it appears to such competent authority that: (1) The adverse remark made is reasonable. Representation is not based on the reasonable grounds. It should be noted in the report that concerned officer has not understood the meaning of adverse remark in good faith. (2) If no adequate and sufficient reasons are found to interfere with the adverse remarks, the representation should be rejected and the same shall be communicated to the to concerned officer/employee. (3) If it appears that the adverse remark is liable to be relaxed, the competent officer should make separate note for the same in the report at concerned place, but the original adverse remark should be kept as it is. Note made in order to make the remark relaxed should not be in such a manner that it makes the adverse remarks reinforced. Note made in order to make the remark relaxed should not be in such a manner that it makes the adverse remarks reinforced. To make it relaxed means to reduce the severity of the adverse remark. (4) If the adverse remark is found to be made out of animosity or against the facts or baseless, the competent officer shall strike off the same or affix chit thereon and to put his signature thereon and the competent authority should make note that such procedure has been undertaken after communicating the head of the department/head of office, if he/she is not the head of the department/head of the office. (5) Representation/explanation against adverse remark should not be kept in the file of report, because if the representation is reasonable, the adverse remark shall be made relaxed or canceled and if the representation is not reasonable, it shall be rejected and such representation shall not serve any purpose if kept with report. (6) The authority higher than the reviewing officer has to give reply of the representation of the concerned officer/employee, but in the case of the officer wherein the decision is taken by the Chief Minister or at the level of concerned minister, the Principal Secretary shall communicate the same. In other cases, the communication is to be made at the level of the reviewing officer of the department/office. Copy of the communication given to the concerned officer/employee shall be placed at proper place in the file of the report i.e. after communication letter. The competent authority shall not have to consider any re- submission on the adverse remark after final decision on representation has been made.” 11. In light of the aforesaid, it emerges that undisputedly, the petitioner herein is not communicated the adverse remarks for the period between 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 in accordance with the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 31.03.1989. A Communication/Notice came to be issued to the petitioner herein with respect to the said adverse remarks on 17.12.2013 which is undisputed and upon perusal of the same, it emerges that the aforesaid is for the period between 01.04.2012 to 22.12.2012. Further, the adverse remarks for the year 2013-14 were communicated to the petitioner on 01.07.2016 i.e. after a period of two years and for the year 2014-15, the adverse remarks were communicated on 14.12.2016 i.e. after a period of four months. Further, the adverse remarks for the year 2013-14 were communicated to the petitioner on 01.07.2016 i.e. after a period of two years and for the year 2014-15, the adverse remarks were communicated on 14.12.2016 i.e. after a period of four months. The aforesaid exercise undertaken by the respondents, in the opinion of this Court, violates the respondent authority's own Resolution dated 31.03.1989 wherein, Clause – 3, Clause – 6 and Clause –11 provides that adverse remarks are required to be communicated within six weeks and also that, the aggrieved employee to prefer representation within six weeks from the date of communication of such adverse remarks. 12. The case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in 2001 (1) GLH 8 in case of I.M. Mehta vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., wherein, in the said decision, the respondent authorities were directed to ignore the said adverse remarks for the said period. This Court deems it fit to reproduce the paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said decision, which read thus: “9. I have considered the averments made by the petitioner in this petition as well as the submissions made by Mr. Parikh for the petitioner and Mr. Desai for the respondent-authorities. I have also taken into consideration the decisions cited by Mr. Parikh in support of his submissions. In 1985 (2) GLR 616 , the question of communication of adverse remarks to the employee concerned has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court and it has been observed that the merits or demerits are to be judged on the basis of four factors, as per the rules already referred to hereinabove. In 7992 (1) GLH 209, it has been observed by this Court that the adverse remarks and the adverse entries in the petitioner's confidential report for the period between 13-10-1986 and 31-3-1987 were communicated to the petitioner after about thirteen months. The Government circulars issued from time to time provided that the adverse remarks should be communicated within six weeks and also that the aggrieved employee should make representation within six weeks from the date of communication of such adverse remarks. In view of grossly belated communication of the adverse remarks, the authority was directed to ignore those adverse entries. The Government circulars issued from time to time provided that the adverse remarks should be communicated within six weeks and also that the aggrieved employee should make representation within six weeks from the date of communication of such adverse remarks. In view of grossly belated communication of the adverse remarks, the authority was directed to ignore those adverse entries. The learned single Judge of this Court has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Haryana v. P. C. Wadhwa, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1201 . Mr. Parikh has submitted that the adverse remarks for the period from 1st April, 1984 to 31st March, 1985 has been communicated to the petitioner on 10th December, 1985 and there was gross delay in communication of the adverse report and therefore, considering the decision of this Court, such adverse remarks in the confidential report of the petitioner now cannot be considered against the petitioner and the show cause notice was issued by the respondent-authority on 24th September, 1986 relying upon the said adverse entry. Said adverse remarks were made absolute by order dated 8th September, 1986 and the petitioner was not permitted to cross the Efficiency Bar. He has, therefore, submitted that in view of the facts of the present case and the law laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court, the present petitions should be allowed by granting reliefs as prayed for in the present petition as prayed for. 10. Therefore, in light of the decisions cited above and considering the Government resolution dated 20-1-1972 and 19-9-1975, the order passed by the respondent-authority dated 10th December, 1985 confirming the said adverse entries by order dated 8th September, 1986 and the show cause notice dated 24th September, 1986 are required to be quashed and set aside by allowing this petition. Accordingly, order dated 10th December,1985 as well as the order dated 8th September, 1986 and the show cause notice dated 24-9-1986 are hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector by ignoring the said adverse remarks for the aforesaid period from 1st April, 1984 to 31st March, 1985 and it is also declared that the petitioner is entitled to normal increment from 1st June, 1985 till the date of his retirement. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector by ignoring his adverse entries as aforesaid as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The respondents are further directed to release normal and regular increments of the petitioner from 1st June, 1985 and to pay all the difference of arrears of such increments within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The respondents are also directed to fix the salary of the petitioner after releasing regular and normal increments from 1st June, 1985 and to pay whatever arrears available to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.” 13. In light of the aforesaid, having heard the learned party- in-person and the learned AGP appearing for the respective parties and considering the facts of the present case which are undisputed, as also considering the ratio as laid down in 2001 (1) GLH 8 in case of I.M. Mehta vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., the prayers, as prayed for, in the present petition are required to be allowed and the same are hereby allowed to the extent that the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner ignoring the adverse remarks for the year 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15; while considering the case of the petitioner for any consequential benefits and/or promotion, in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the case of the present petitioner. The aforesaid exercise be undertaken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 14. The present petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.