( 1 ) RESPONDENT No. 1, Sh. Purshottam Das Gupta, is a member of Delhi Judicial service (for short "djs" ). He joined DJS on 28/1/1978. He is aspiring to get promotion to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (for short "dhjs ). His case for promotion to the DHJS was considered by a Full Court of this Court on administrative side but rejected. While considering his case for promotion to DHJS, adverse remarks made by the High Court for the years 1994 and 1995 came in his way. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 1 filed CWP No. 4334 of 1997 in this Court, inter alia, seeking quashing of the adverse remarks in his Confidential Reports for the years 1994 and 1995 and direction to promote him to DHJS with retrospective effect and appropriate seniority and other benefits or in the alternative direction to consider his case for promotion to DHJS with retrospective seniority and all other benefits. His writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 28/5/1999. By this judgment the learned Single Judge has quashed the acrs of the respondent No. 1 herein as recorded by the High Court for the years 1994 and 1995. It is also declared that respondent No. 1 herein is to be graded B+ for the years 1994 and 1995. The learned Single Judge has further held that respondent is declared to have been promoted to DHJS as on 18/5/1996 and shall be entitled to his due seniority and ail consequential benefits. It is this judgment and order dated 28/5/1999 which is impugned in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge in his judgment has narrated detail facts on the basis of which the respondent No. 1 s case had been dealt with by the High Court and impugned orders were passed. It is, therefore, not necessary to repeat all these facts once again and the purpose would be served in highlighting the material facts.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 joined DJS on 28/01/1978. He was granted selection grade in the said service in June 1993 w. e. f. 31/5/1991. On 18/5/1996 meeting of Full Court was held and one of the items of agenda was consideration of eligible judicial officers in DJS for promotion to DHJS. This consideration was not possible without there being record of ACRs of all the eligible officers. Accordingly acrs of 23 officers were recorded by the Full Court and thereafter Full Court considered the cases of these officers for promotion to DHJS. As far as respondent no. 1 is concerned, he was given adverse remarks c-lntergrity Doubtful for the years 1994 and 1995 in that meeting. He was also not found fit for promotion to DHJS and was superseded.

( 4 ) ON 27/5/1996 a communication was sent from the High Court to respondent no. 1 informing him about the adverse remarks and he was asked to make representation, if any, within six weeks of communication of such remarks. Respondent no. 1 submitted his representation on 8/7/1996 to to District Judge which was forwarded by the District Judge to the High Court on 10/7/1996 with his endorsement for favourable necessary action, remarking that no complaint has been received/pending in his office. This representation was followed by another representation submitted on 21/2/1997 in which it was also stated that his case for promotion for DHJS may be considered with retrospective effect. Yet another representation dated 16/9/1997 was made to the District Judge for a personal hearing in the matter by the Full Court which was forwarded by the district Judge to the High Court. Representations of respondent No. 1 as well as of some other officers came up for discussion in Full Court Meetings from time to time. On 18/1/1997 the Full Court constituted a Committee of four Judges to enquire into these representations. The Committee gave its report on 22/7/1997. Report shows that representations of as many as 19 judicial officers were considered in the meetings of the Committee held on various dates. The Committee had perused personal files, complaint files,