ORDER : Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J. Heard Sri K. Lakshmana Raju, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in all four Writ Petitions; Smt. M. Anusha, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5 in W.P.No.25140 of 2020 and on behalf of Sri Challa Venkat, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 in W.P.No.11122 of 2021 and Respondent No.3 in W.P.No.31294 of 2022; Smt. P. Rajani Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Endowments in W.P.Nos.11122 of 2021 and 31294 of 2022 and Sri V.R.N. Prasanth, learned Standing Counsel for T.T.D. 2. All these Writ Petitions (W.P.Nos.25140 of 2020, 9703 and 11122 of 2021 & 31294 of 2022) are taken-up together, as they arise from out of common issues relating to the same parties. The prayer in W.P.No.25140 of 2020 raises the core issue and the decision rendered in the said Writ Petition would have bearing on the outcome in the other three Writ Petitions as well. 3. The prayer sought in the W.P.No.25140 of 2020 is as under. “…..issue a Writ or Order more particularly one In the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the Impugned Proc.No.TL1/8367/CE/TTD/TPT/2019 dt.28.03.2020, TL1/8354/CE/TTD/TPT/2019 dt.16.10.2019 and Roc No TL1/8354/CE/TTD/TPT/2019 dt.06.05.2020 issued by the 1st respondent depriving petitioner’s promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) and promoted the unofficial respondents 4 and 5 even the petitioner being senior to them under the cause of the post of Superintending Engineer (civil) is a selection post which is required to fill based on merit and ability is totally misled the fact on record despite the fact the petitioner received two Appreciation Certificates and Two Grams Gold Dollar and Silver Dollar in the Executive Engineer as is evident vide Proc. Dt.18.01.2011 and set aside the impugned proceedings are illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently hold that petitioner being senior and as rewarded employee entitled to be promoted as Superintending Engineer (Civil) from the date on which the unofficial respondent 4 promoted i.e., 16.10.2019 with all consequential benefits and to pass…... Facts as submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner. 4. Facts as submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner. 4. The facts as submitted by Sri K. Lakshmana Raju, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.25140 of 2020 are that the Writ Petitioner has joined the services of Respondent No.1 (Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam) on 22.10.1986 as Assistant Executive Engineer after being duly selected; that he was thereafter promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer on 03.09.1992; and, that the Writ Petitioner was further promoted as Executive Engineer on 23.06.2003. Merit & Ability. 4.1. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for Writ Petitioner that it is the case of the Writ Petitioner that he has passed all Departmental Tests from time to time and had also acquired higher qualifications of : i) M.E (Civil) (Town & Country Planning), ii) M.B.A (Hospital Management), and, iii) Diploma in Temple Culture (issued by Rastriya Sanskrit Vidya Peet); that the Writ Petitioner has received several appreciations; that he was recommended on two occasions for meritorious service vide Proceeding dated 18.01.2011 at Sl.No.44 (Ex.P.10); that the Writ Petitioner had discharged his duties honestly and diligently without any room for complaints of any nature which led to the grant of two appreciations for his meritorious service; that the Respondent No.3 namely the Chief Engineer, with the permission of the Executive Officer of Respondent No.1, has deputed the Writ Petitioner, when the Writ Petitioner was serving as Executive Engineer in (Quality Control) to discuss with the highest cadre Officers of Forest Department of the Government of Maharashtra at Nagpur for the purpose of procuring teakwood tree-logs for Dwajasthambam, which were sought to be erected in Govindaraja Swamy Temple, Tirupati; that the Writ Petitioner has received appreciation, as the same was done in a record span of time. Therefore, the Learned Counsel for Writ Petitioner would submit that the Writ Petitioner, based on his qualifications and the appreciations received, that he is way better in ‘merit’ and ‘ability’, in comparison with Respondent Nos.4 & 5. Seniority. 4.2 It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Respondents have circulated the Seniority List of Executive Engineers (Civil) for the period from 17.05.2002 to 22.07.2004 on 26.04.2014, wherein the name of the Writ Petitioner figured at Sl.No.6, while the name of Respondent No.4 has figured at Sl.No.7 and the name of Respondent No.5 has figured at Sl.No.8. 4.3. 4.3. The Respondent No.4 has raised an objection on 16.05.2014, assailing the Seniority List dated 26.04.2014 about his placement as well as the placement of the Writ Petitioner and had sought review of the Seniority List dated 26.04.2014 with a prayer to put his name above the name of the Writ Petitioner; that the Competent Authority, after having done careful examination of the claim of the Respondent No.4, had rejected his claim by confirming the Final Seniority List vide the proceedings bearing ROC No.TL1/17408/2006 dated 10.09.2019 (Exs.P.8 and P.9); that, the said Seniority List dated 10.09.2019 had attained finality, which indicates that the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are Juniors to the Writ Petitioner. 4.4. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that on 16.10.2019, the Official Respondents herein have promoted the Unofficial Respondent No.4 to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil), thereby ignoring the candidature of the Writ Petitioner despite the fact that the Writ Petitioner is senior to the Unofficial Respondent No.4, as is evident from the Final Seniority List dated 10.09.2019 (Ex.P.9); that having been aggrieved by the illegal action of the Respondents herein vide Order dated 16.10.2019, the Writ Petitioner herein has submitted a Representation to Respondent No.1 immediately on the next day i.e., 17.10.2019 (Ex.P.4) with a request to consider the case of the Writ Petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer; that there was no response from the Official Respondents herein; that, therefore, the Writ Petitioner has filed W.P.No.17890 of 2019 assailing the illegal action on the part of the Official Respondents; that the Learned Single Judge of this Court, vide Order dated 12.03.2020 in W.P.No.17890 of 2019, had disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Respondents to consider and dispose of the Representation of the Writ Petitioner dated 17.10.2019 (Ex.P.4) within a period of four weeks. 4.5. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has further submitted that the Representation submitted by the Writ Petitioner dated 17.10.2019 (Ex.P.4) was rejected vide Order dated 28.03.2020. This apart, vide Order dated 06.05.2020, the Official Respondents herein have also temporarily promoted the Unofficial Respondent No.5 as Superintending Engineer (Civil) based on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 04.05.2020. 4.5. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has further submitted that the Representation submitted by the Writ Petitioner dated 17.10.2019 (Ex.P.4) was rejected vide Order dated 28.03.2020. This apart, vide Order dated 06.05.2020, the Official Respondents herein have also temporarily promoted the Unofficial Respondent No.5 as Superintending Engineer (Civil) based on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 04.05.2020. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petitioner herein has challenged: (i) the Proceeding bearing Roc.No.TL1/8354/CE/ TTD/TPT dated 16.10.2019 (Ex.P.1); (ii) Proceeding bearing Roc.No.TL1/8367/CE/TTD/TPT/2019 dt.28.03.2020 (Ex.P.2); and, (iii) Proceeding bearing Roc No TL1/8354/CE/TTD/TPT/2019 dt.06.05.2020 (Ex.P.3). Submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner. 5. Sri K. Lakshmana Raju, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to various documents and has submitted that the impugned action of the Official Respondents herein is legally untenable, inasmuch as the Official Respondents have completely ignored the seniority of the Writ Petitioner and has promoted the juniors namely the Respondent No.4 (vide Order dated 16.10.2019) and Respondent No.5 (vide Order dated 06.05.2020) as Superintendent Engineers. 5.1. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that the reason given for non-consideration of the candidature of the Writ Petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) on the basis of ‘seniority’ is that the post is a ‘selection post’, and therefore, it is required to be filled by taking into account the merit and ability in terms of Rule 5 of the A.P State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short ‘A.P.S.S.S Rules’). It is also stated that on examination of the ACRs (Annual Confidential Reports), the Departmental Promotion Committee, has recommended the name of the Unofficial Respondent Nos.4 & 5, as they are found fit for promotion. It is also stated by the learned Counsel that the other reason given for ignoring the Writ Petitioner’s candidature is on account of Rule 6 (f) of the A.P.S.S.S Rules. 5.2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would contend that the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) is not a ‘selection post’ but a promotional post which is to be filled only by dint of seniority. He would also contend that there are three Superintending Engineer posts existing in the Respondent No.1- Devasthanam, therefore, they cannot be treated as ‘selection post’. 5.2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would contend that the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) is not a ‘selection post’ but a promotional post which is to be filled only by dint of seniority. He would also contend that there are three Superintending Engineer posts existing in the Respondent No.1- Devasthanam, therefore, they cannot be treated as ‘selection post’. Learned Counsel would also submit that the Official Respondents have erred in placing reliance on Rule 5 and Rule 6 (f) of the A.P.S.S.S Rules for depriving the legitimate due of the Writ Petitioner herein. 5.3. The Writ Petitioner has also filed W.P.No.9703 of 2021 seeking a direction for preparation of seniority list and for considering the Writ Petitioner for the post of Chief Engineer and also to consider the claim of the Writ Petitioner for promotion. The Writ Petitioner has also filed W.P.No.11122 of 2021 challenging the Proceedings of the Official Respondents in keeping Respondent No.4 as in-charge of the post of Chief Engineer in the T.T.D until further Orders. The Writ Petitioner has also filed W.P.No.31294 of 2022 challenging the Order dated 20.09.2022 by which the Respondent No.4 herein has been temporarily promoted as Chief Engineer of T.T.D. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice. 5.4. Sri K. Lakshmana Raju, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has submitted that, placing reliance on Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) without conveying adverse remarks, if there are any, to the Writ Petitioner is a gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and this deficiency of non-observance of the Principles of Natural Justice goes to the very root of the matter and therefore, the entire proceeding initiated by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) would get vitiated. He had also submitted that, viewed from any angle, even in terms of merit and ability, the Writ Petitioner would out-weigh the Respondent No.4 & Respondent No.5 in terms of merit and ability. 5.5. Sri K. Lakshmana Raju, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, would submit that the proceedings undertaken by the DPC is a sham inasmuch as the adverse remarks, if any, have never been communicated to the Writ Petitioner. The Writ Petitioner ought not to have been kept in dark, if there is any observation or remark in the Annual Confidential Reports that may cause an adverse impact on the future promotions of the Writ Petitioner. The Writ Petitioner ought not to have been kept in dark, if there is any observation or remark in the Annual Confidential Reports that may cause an adverse impact on the future promotions of the Writ Petitioner. He would, therefore, submit that this brazen and highhanded action on the part of Respondent No.1 is contrary to the settled principles of law. 5.6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to various documents to indicate the appreciations and awards received by him and also the additional qualifications acquired by him in the year 1999, 2010 and 2016 (Exs.P.10 and P.11). Submission of Sri V.R.N. Prasanth, Ld. Standing Counsel for T.T.D. 6. The Executive Officer of T.T.D namely the Respondent No.1 in W.P.No.25140 of 2020 has filed the Counter Affidavit on 31.01.2022. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 while adverting to the Counter Affidavit has submitted as under. 6.1. As per the governing Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1060 Revenue (Endowments-1) dated 24.10.1989, the method of recruitment for the post of Superintending Engineer (in Civil Engineer Section) is by promotion from the cadre of Executive Engineer and that as per Rule 9(iv) of the said G.O.Ms.No.1060, all posts carrying the scale of pay of Assistant Executive Officer or an identical pay scale and above including Technical category posts shall be ‘selection posts’. 6.2. That the post of Superintending Engineer is a selection post as per Rule 9(v) of G.O.Ms.No.1060 Revenue (Endowments- 1) dated 24.10.1989 and that the promotion to the selection category post shall be on the grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only on merit and ability are approximately equal. 6.3. It is further submitted that as per Rule 4 of G.O.Ms.No.1060, the T.T.D Employees shall be governed by the A.P.S.S.S Rules and several other related Rules. Attention was drawn to Rule 5 of A.P.S.S.S Rules, which stipulates that all first appointments of State services and all promotions/appointments by transfer in that service shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal. 6.4. The T.T.D is following the Engineering Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.103, Transport, Roads and Buildings (S.II), dated 22.05.1996, wherein the method of appointment is identical to that of Rule 5 of A.P.S.S.S Rules. 6.4. The T.T.D is following the Engineering Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.103, Transport, Roads and Buildings (S.II), dated 22.05.1996, wherein the method of appointment is identical to that of Rule 5 of A.P.S.S.S Rules. It deals with the appointment of the post of Superintending Engineer and states that it is by promotion from feeder category of Executive Engineer (Civil). 6.5. It is further submitted that the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 14.10.2019 and had unanimously recommended the name of the Respondent No.4 to the post of Superintending Engineer on the basis that he has better track record in Annual Confidential Reports, as a fit person for promotion in the category of Superintending Engineer. Thereafter, the Departmental Promotion Committee had met on 04.05.2020 and unanimously recommended the name of Respondent No.5 on 06.05.2020 to the post of Superintending Engineer. 6.6. That the Departmental Promotion Committee has again met on 03.08.2020 and had considered the names of Writ Petitioner and one Sri B. Manoharam and has unanimously recommended the name of the Writ Petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Superintending Engineer (Civil) for having better track record in comparison to Sri B. Manoharam and as such the Writ Petitioner was promoted vide Order dated 05.08.2020. It is stated in the Counter Affidavit that mere possession of higher qualification do not confer any right to claim for promotion. It is also stated that W.P.No.25140 of 2020 is not maintainable in view of the Order passed by this Court on 12.03.2020 in W.P.No.17890 of 2019 (Ex.P.5). Pleadings of Unofficial Respondent Nos. 4 & 5. 6.7. The Respondent Nos.4 & 5 have also filed separate Counter Affidavits on 27.07.2022, which are, in verbatim, identical. It is particularly stated in Para No.9 of the Counter Affidavit of Respondent Nos.4 & 5 that the recommendations made in their favour for being promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer are based on recommendations made in the Annual Confidential Reports. The Learned Counsel for Unofficial Respondent Nos.4 & 5 has supported and adopted the submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 (the T.T.D) Rejoinder / Reply. 7. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has once again reiterated his stand. Learned Counsel has filed Rejoinder/Reply on 22.02.2022. The Learned Counsel for Unofficial Respondent Nos.4 & 5 has supported and adopted the submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 (the T.T.D) Rejoinder / Reply. 7. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has once again reiterated his stand. Learned Counsel has filed Rejoinder/Reply on 22.02.2022. It is categorically submitted by the learned Counsel that it is a specific case of the Writ Petitioner that the Official Respondents have never communicated any adverse remarks recorded in Annual Confidential Records to the Writ Petitioner. Learned Counsel further submitted that non-communication of any adverse remarks, which is likely to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee against the Writ Petitioner, ought to have been communicated to the Writ Petitioner. Non-communication of such remarks would vitiate the entire proceeding. In Para No.9 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition as well as in Para No.7 of the Rejoinder/Reply by the Writ Petitioner dated 22.02.2022, it has been categorically stated by the Writ Petitioner that the Proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee are vitiated due to non-communication of the adverse entries, if any, in the service records. Learned Counsel would submit that none of the Counter Affidavits filed by either Official Respondent or Unofficial Respondents have furnished reasons for non-furnishing of Annual Confidential Reports. He would also submit that there is no averment by the Official Respondents that they have considered the achievements of the Writ Petitioners. 7.1. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has placed reliance on various Judgments to vindicate the stand of the Writ Petitioner that non-communication of adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Reports has civil consequence, and therefore, would vitiate the entire proceeding. He has placed reliance on Para Nos.8 & 9 of the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and Others [ (2009) 16 SCC 146 ]. The said Para Nos.8 & 9 are usefully extracted hereunder. “8. Coming to the second aspect, that though the benchmark “very good” is required for being considered for promotion, admittedly the entry of “good” was not communicated to the appellant. The entry of “good” should have been communicated to him as he was having “very good” in the previous year. The said Para Nos.8 & 9 are usefully extracted hereunder. “8. Coming to the second aspect, that though the benchmark “very good” is required for being considered for promotion, admittedly the entry of “good” was not communicated to the appellant. The entry of “good” should have been communicated to him as he was having “very good” in the previous year. In those circumstances, in our opinion, non-communication of entries in the annual confidential report of a public servant whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the armed forces), it has civil consequences because it may affect his chances of promotion or getting other benefits. Hence, such non-communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The same view has been reiterated in the abovereferred decision (Dev Dutt case [ (2008) 8 SCC 725 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 771 : (2008) 7 Scale 403 ] , SCC p. 738, para 41) relied on by the appellant. Therefore, the entries “good” if at all granted to the appellant, the same should not have been taken into consideration for being considered for promotion to the higher grade. The respondent has no case that the appellant had ever been informed of the nature of the grading given to him. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that the officer who was immediately junior in service to the appellant was given promotion on 28-8-2000. Therefore, the appellant also be deemed to have been given promotion from 28- 8-2000.. 7.2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also placed reliance on Para Nos.7 & 9 of the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal Vs. Chairman, Union Public Service Commission and Others [ (2015) 14 SCC 427 ]. The said Para Nos.7 & 9 are usefully extracted hereunder. “7. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied that the impugned order [UPSC v. Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal, 2002 SCC OnLine Cal 675 : (2003) 2 CHN 20 ] passed by the High Court, deserves to be set aside, inasmuch as, the claim of the appellant could not be ignored by taking into consideration, uncommunicated annual confidential reports for the years 1995- 1996, 1996-1997 and 1998-1999, wherein the appellant was assessed as “good”. In the absence of the aforesaid entries, it is apparent, that the remaining entries of the appellant being “very good”, he would be entitled to be considered fit for the promotion, to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, on the basis of the then prevailing DoPT guidelines, and the remaining valid annual confidential reports. 9. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied, that the respondents ought to be directed to reconsider the claim of promotion of the appellant, to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, for the vacancies which arose during the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 on the basis of the communicated reports for the years 1997-1998 and 1999-2000, within a period of three months from today. Ordered accordingly.. 7.3. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also placed reliance on Para Nos.24 to 26 and Para Nos.31 to 33 in the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and Others [ (2008) 8 SCC 725 ]. The said Para Nos.24 to 26 and Para Nos.31 to 33 are usefully exracted hereunder. “24. What is natural justice? The rules of natural justice are not codified nor are they unvarying in all situations, rather they are flexible. They may, however, be summarised in one word. fairness. In other words, what they require is fairness by the authority concerned. Of course, what is fair would depend on the situation and the context. 25. Lord Esher M.R. in Voinet v. Barrett [(1885) 55 LJQB 39 (CA)] observed:“Natural justice is the natural sense of what is right and wrong.. 26. In our opinion, our natural sense of what is right and wrong tells us that it was wrong on the part of the respondent in not communicating the “good” entry to the appellant since he was thereby deprived of the right to make a representation against it, which if allowed would have entitled him to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. One may not have the right to promotion, but one has the right to be considered for promotion, and this right of the appellant was violated in the present case. 31. Thus, it is well-settled that the rules of natural justice are flexible. One may not have the right to promotion, but one has the right to be considered for promotion, and this right of the appellant was violated in the present case. 31. Thus, it is well-settled that the rules of natural justice are flexible. The question to be asked in every case to determine whether the rules of natural justice have been violated is : have the authorities acted fairly. 32. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India [ (1981) 1 SCC 664 : AIR 1981 SC 818 ] this Court following the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. [ (1978) 1 SCC 405 : AIR 1978 SC 851 ] held that the soul of the rule (natural justice) is fair play in action. 33. In our opinion, fair play required that the respondent should have communicated the “good” entry of 1993-1994 to the appellant so that he could have an opportunity of making a representation praying for upgrading the same so that he could be eligible for promotion. Non-communication of the said entry, in our opinion, was hence unfair on the part of the respondent and hence violative of natural justice.. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1 (T.T.D) along with written submissions has placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India & Others Vs. Mohd. Mynuddin [ (1987) 4 SCC 486 ] on the proposition that the decision of the Selection Committee as regards the fitness of candidates for promotion cannot be impeached except on the ground of malafides and that the right to promotion to higher post is not a vested right. 8.1. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1 (T.T.D) has also placed reliance on Para Nos.19, 21 and 30 to 33 rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in M.V. Thimmaiah and Others Vs. Union Public Service Commission and Others [ (2008) 2 SCC 119 ] for the same proposition that the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of malafides or serious violation of statutory rules. 8.2. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1 (T.T.D) has also placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Others Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Others [ (1990) 1 SCC 305 ] and also in Union Public Service Commission Vs. 8.2. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1 (T.T.D) has also placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Others Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Others [ (1990) 1 SCC 305 ] and also in Union Public Service Commission Vs. L.P. Tiwari and Others [ (2006) 12 SCC 317 ] on the proposition that a Tribunal cannot itself interfere on a opinion made by the Expert Body. Analysis. 9. The admitted facts are that even as per the Counter Affidavit filed by the Official Respondent No.1, wherein the dates of appointment of the Writ Petitioner and also the Unofficial Respondent Nos.4 & 5 have been given at Para No.12; that the Writ Petitioner has joined on 22.10.1986 as Assistant Executive Engineer, whereas the Unofficial Respondent No.4 has joined for the same post on 15.03.1990 and Unofficial Respondent No.5 has joined for the same post on 27.02.1987. 9.1. The promotion of the Writ Petitioner to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer was on 05.09.1992, while the Unofficial Respondent No.4 got promoted to the same post on 06.07.1994 and Unofficial Respondent No.5 got promoted to the same post on 04.09.1992. The Writ Petitioner got promoted as Executive Engineer on 23.06.2003, while the Unofficial Respondent No.4 got promoted to the same post on 25.06.2003 and Unofficial Respondent No.5 got promoted to the same post on 23.06.2003. It is also an admitted fact that in the Seniority List issued by the Respondents on 10.09.2019, the name of the Writ Petitioner is at Sl.No.6, while the name of the Unofficial Respondent No.4 is at Sl.No.7 and the name of Unofficial Respondent No.5 is at Sl.No.8. It is also an admitted fact that the objection of Respondent No.4 against the Seniority List dated 26.04.2014 was rejected by Respondent No.1 and confirmed the earlier list on 10.09.2019. It is also an admitted fact that the Counter Affidavit filed by the Official Respondent No.1 is completely silent about the nature of adverse notings, if at all, there are any, against the Writ Petitioner. In the Counter Affidavit filed by the Official Respondent No.1 dated 31.01.2022, it is specifically not adverted to whether the Annual Confidential Reports of the Writ Petitioner were ever communicated to the Writ Petitioner. Conclusions. 10. In the Counter Affidavit filed by the Official Respondent No.1 dated 31.01.2022, it is specifically not adverted to whether the Annual Confidential Reports of the Writ Petitioner were ever communicated to the Writ Petitioner. Conclusions. 10. This Court is in agreement with the proposition of law from the Judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that non-communication of any adverse findings in Annual Confidential Reports would vitiate the proceeding. The Counter Affidavit of Respondent No.1 is also silent about the awards and appreciations received in favour of the Writ Petitioner and how the Departmental Promotion Committee has treated the said awards and appreciations. Even to contend that the Unofficial Respondent Nos.4 & 5 are more meritorious, there should be some material in the hands of the Official Respondents in the form of awards or appreciations, which out-weigh the merit canvassed by the Writ Petitioner. However, in the present case neither the Official Respondents nor the Unofficial Respondents in their Counter Affidavits have ever stated that the Unofficial Respondent Nos.4 & 5 have any such appreciations or awards that would out-weigh the merit of the Writ Petitioner. 10.1. There is no doubt that the post of Superintending Engineer is a ‘selection post’ and that the merit and ability are of a paramount consideration and that only when merit and ability are approximately equal, only then the Appointing Authority would consider the seniority. However, in the instant case, neither the Official Respondent nor the Unofficial Respondent Nos.4 & 5 have been able to prove that in terms of merit and ability, the Writ Petitioner cannot match the Unofficial Respondent Nos.4 & 5. Rather, all the Respondents would place reliance only on the subjective and undisclosed weightage rendered by the DPC. 10.2. Hence, in view of the above observations, this Court is of the opinion that the non-communication of adverse remarks, if any, would vitiate the proceedings. This apart, there is no material on record to show that the Unofficial Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are higher in merit and ability over and above the Writ Petitioner. This finding is given particularly in the light of the fact that the Writ Petitioner has been able to establish through the material placed on record (Exs.P.10 & 11) that the Writ Petitioner in fact had several appreciations and awards as a recognition to his outstanding service. 10.3. This finding is given particularly in the light of the fact that the Writ Petitioner has been able to establish through the material placed on record (Exs.P.10 & 11) that the Writ Petitioner in fact had several appreciations and awards as a recognition to his outstanding service. 10.3. Accordingly, W.P.No.25140 of 2020 stands allowed. Since W.P.Nos.9703 of 2021, 11122 of 2021 & 31294 of 2022 have been filed against the consequential Proceedings, the said Writ Petitions would also, by implication stand allowed. As held in Para No.9 of the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and Others [ (2009) 16 SCC 146 ], it has to be held that the Writ Petitioner is deemed to have been given promotion from 16.10.2019 which is the date on which the Unofficial Respondent No.4 was appointed as Superintending Engineer. Needless to state that in terms of seniority, since the name of the Writ Petitioner figures at Sl.No.6 of the Seniority List dated 26.04.2014, he shall be treated as senior to Unofficial Respondent Nos.4 & 5. Consequently, the Writ Petitioner shall be entitled to all service benefits attached to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) from 16.10.2019. The Respondent Nos.4 and 5 shall be treated to have been promoted from 06.05.2020 and 05.08.2020 respectively to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil). No Order as to Costs. 11. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this Order.