Promotion criteria based on ACRs must be met for advancement in the army, and claims of ACR rectification or downgrading require supporting evidence.

( 1 ) PETITIONER has retired from army as JCO on 30. 9. 2000 but he is still insisting on his-promotion to the rank of Subedar.

( 2 ) PETITIONER was enrolled in the Army on 29. 9. 1974. He was thereafter promoted as Naik and then as Naib Subedar. However, he was allegedly denied promotion to the rank of Subedar as he had failed to obtain "high average grading" in the ACR on 1997 and 1998. The movement order dated 2. 9. 2000 was also later passed asking him to move to Pension Establishment. He has challenged these two actions in the present petition and has prayed for quashing of his ACRs recorded in 1997 and 1998 or any other ACR which was not in consonance with his career profile and for his promotion to the rank of Subedar with retrospective effect from 24. 6. 1999. He also seeks a restraint order against respondents from implementing movement order dated 2. 9. 2000.

( 3 ) PETITIONER s second relief has become redundant and is not required to be examined. Coming to his claim for promotion to the post of Subedar, his case is that he had maintained the above/high average career profile all along. Later he was apprised of downgradation of acrs of 1996-97 and 1997-98. But on 4. 6. 1999, his ACR for 1996-97 was duly rectified and graded as "above average and handed over to his Commanding Officer. But he was still superseded and was not conveyed any performance counselling in terms of Army Order dated 5/90. He thereafter made a statutory complaint dated 10. 11. 1999 and also served a legal notice dated 15. 2. 20oo through counsel, but still no action was taken in the matter by respondents. He claims that since his acr for 1997-98 was downgraded from "high average" to "average", he was not communicated any adverse or weak points and that this downgrading was violative of ao-5/90. He has placed reliance in this regard on the supreme Court judgment in Gurdial Singh vs. State of punjab (AIR 1979 SC 1662) laying down that uncommunicated adverse report in a confidential roll could not be acted upon to deny promotional opportunity.

( 4 ) THE stand taken by respondents is that petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the rank of subedar in terms of the criteria laid down for such promotion whereby his last three ACRs were to be considered out of which two should have been not less than "high average grading . As against this, petitioner had earned two "average" reports in ACRs for 1997 and 1998 while serving in 12 Dogra. It is explained that there were no weak/adverse remarks endorsed in his two ACRs and there was no question of conveying these to him. His performance, on the other hand, as JCO was assessed both by the Initiating and reviewing Officer and was graded average which assessment was consistent and objective and made in accordance with law. It is denied that any statutory complaint dated 10. 11. 1999 was received by it but his legal notice was duly replied. On the contrary. , he had submitted a handwritten complaint unaccompanied by requisite 10 copies which was returned to him. It is also denied that his ACRs for 1996-97 and 1997-98 were rectified or that any performance counselling was required to be given to him.

( 5 ) PETITIONER has also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents reterating his stand and it is not necessary to reproduce the averments made by him which refute the contentions of respondents.

( 6 ) ALL that falls for consideration is nether petitioner as unjustifiably denied proton to the rank of subedar and whether nis ACR for 1997-98 could be ordered to be reviewed or rewritten by the concerned authority.

( 7 ) THERE, is no dispute that promotion to the rank of Subedar is accorded in accordance with the criteria which stipulates taking in regard the last three confidential reports on the JCO, two in the rank of Naib subedar and one in the rank of Havaldar. All the three reports have to be of not less than "high average grading . It is also admitted position that petitioner did not possess a