The court emphasized the need for fair, objective, and constructive comments in assessing the character and performance of government employees, as well as the requirement for adverse entries to be based on established facts and communicated in a manner that allows the officer to present their case for improvement.

JUDGMENT :

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. The Petitioner, who joined the Border Security Force ("BSF") as Medical Officer on 19th March 1987, has filed the present petition seeking the quashing of adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report ("ACR") for the period 1st April 1998 to 31st March 1999, the letter dated 9th November 1999 communicating the adverse remarks and the order dated 28th August 2000 passed by the Additional Director General (Medical) Respondent No.3 rejecting his representation dated 18th January 2000 against such adverse remarks.

2. The Petitioner has also sought the quashing of an order dated 1st September 2015 issued by the Commandant (Medical) stating that the Petitioner was assessed as "unfit" in the Review DSC dated 4th June 2015 for promotion from Chief Medical Officer (Ordinary Grade) ["CMO (OG)"] to CMO (Special Grade) ["CMO (SG)"] with effect from 5th April 2002. The third relief is for a direction to the Respondents to consider the Petitioner afresh for promotion to CMO (OG) to CMO (SG) after expunging of the adverse remarks in his ACR for the period 1st April 1998 to and 31st March 1999 and to correctly fix his seniority in the post of CMO (SG) with effect from 5th April 2002 instead of 19th March 2003 with full consequential benefits for his next higher promotion.

3. The background facts are that the Petitioner was initially promoted to the post of Senior Medical Officer ("SMO") on 1st October 1991. On 25th June 1998 an order was issued for promotions from SMO to CMO (OG) but the Petitioner was not included in the said promotion order.

4. After the rejection of his representation against his non-promotion, the Petitioner filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench. During the pendency of the writ petition the official Respondents made a statement before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court that after considering all aspects they had decided to promote the Petitioner as CMO (OG). On the basis of the above statement the High Court disposed of the Petitioner's writ petition on 24th March 2000 with the direction that a formal notification and promotion order should be issued expeditiously.

5. In the consequential promotion order the Petitioner was promoted as CMO (OG) with effect from 19th March 1999. According to the Petitioner he should have been promoted as CMO (OG) and granted seniority on that basis with effect from 19th March 1997. Again, the Petitioner made several representations which were rejected.

6. Subsequently, the Petitioner was promoted CMO (OG) to CMO (SG) by an order dated 22nd July 2004. The Petitioner points out that his promotion to CMO (SG) should have been with effect from 5th April 2002 and not 19th March 2003 as indicated in the above promotion order. Aggrieved by this the Petitioner filed a second writ petition being WP(C) 1295 of 2014 before this Court to grant seniority with effect from 1997 for his promotion from SMO to CMO (OG). He also sought a corresponding amendment to the impugned combined eligibility/gradation list of CMO (NFSG) (as on 1st April 2013).

7. During the pendency of the above writ petition, Respondents 1 to 3 issued a communication dated 3rd July 2015 granting promotion of the Petitioner to the rank of CMO (OG) retrospectively with effect from 19th March 1997. Accordingly, WP (C) 1295 of 2014 was disposed of by this Court by order dated 17th July 2015 which reads as under:

"It is, therefore, apparent the consequential benefits of pay fixation etc., could be admissible from the said date i.e.,19th March 1997. The petitioner's further claim for seniority in the said rank w.e.f. 19th March 1997 has not been referred to in the order dated 3rd July,2015 produced by the respondents.

Accordingly, a direction is issued to grant consequential seniority fixing the petitioner's eligibility to be reflected in the seniority list of CMS w.e.f. 19th March,1997 and grant all consequential benefits which are permissible in terms of Claim A in para 44 of the presen