The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to communicate adverse remarks in ACRs, provide an opportunity for improvement, and maintain the integrity of the appraisal system.

( 1 ) THIS letters patent appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single judge in CWP No. 1774/97 decided on 29th april, 1997. Col. Digamber Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Single Judge has not adverted to the fact that on account of Confidential Report initiated in CFL, Delhi for 1988-89 and 1989- 90 in which due to subjective assessment on account of petitioner s uprightness, not towing the line of action with the Commanding officer, the petitioner was given lukewarm acr in revenge. It was contended that the selection Board acted in violation of the well- settled law laid down by the Supreme Court that selection Boards will not take cognizance of any uncommunicated adverse remarks which disturbed the overall record of the service of the petitioner and the objective assessment for selection to the post of Lt. Colonel. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition simply by observing that the statutory complaint was considered and rejected without adverting to the aforesaid argument of the petitioner. In the writ petition the petitioner prayed, inter alia, for the following writs:

(A) Issue a Writ of Mandamus to respondent to promote the petitioner restoring his inter se seniority.

(B) Issue writ of certiorari setting aside the proceedings of selection Boards which assessed the petitioner for the selection grade Lt. Col. In August, 1995, aug. 96 and Nov. 96 and issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents that in the alternative the petitioner be assessed afresh by selection board taking into consideration his all ACRs up-to date.

(C) Issue Writ of Mandamus to respondent no. 2 that ACRs for the period 1988 and 1989-90 be set aside.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has also contended that recording of ACR giving lower grading than what the appellant was getting, would amount to adverse entry of which notice was a must. He also relied upon a letter/circular of the respondent dated 21st august, 1989 dealino with communication of adverse and advisery remarks in the confidential reports. The relevant paras are as under:

". . . . . . It is reiterated that "performance counselling" is a continuous process and therefore, the ratee must be given appropriate "guidance for improvement" as and when a weakness is noticed. Only when an officer fails to show the desired improvement, the adverse/ advisory remarks should be included in his confidential report, so that" cognizance is taken of his weakness while planning his future. . . . .

( 3 ) IT is pertinent to highlight that the purpose of reflection and communication of adverse remarks is three fold viz. apprise the ratee that due cognizance of his weakness (s) has been taken, to bring his weakness to the notice of management and give him an opportunity to seek redress if he feels aggrieved due to adverse remarks. To this end and in the interest of credibility of the "appraisal system". . It is imperative that the entire pen picture (less box grading) and details of "verbal and written guidance for improvement" are communicated to the ratee. "

( 4 ) IT was contended before us that the assessment of the appellant in his ACR for 1988-89 and 1989-90 was done by the same reporting officer and the appellant has been down graded from earlier ACR of thirteen year This has been done without assigning any reason and communication of any weak or adverse remark to the appellant. The down grading of ACR of the appellant has acted adversely in case of the appellant as he has not been approved for promotion to the rank of Lt. Colonel.

( 5 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner contended that if the ACR of 1988-89 and 1989-90 are not taken into consideration for his promotion to the post of Lt. Colonel, then there is no other ground for the respondent not to promote the petitioner. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. The State of Punjab and Ors. 1979 (1) SLR 804 and U. P. Ja