B.K. Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner presently working as Executive Engineer (Civil), N.F.S.G. under the respondents has filed this writ petition making a challenge to the overall gradings given to him in the ACRs pertaining to the periods from (a) 01.04.2003 to 25.09.2003, (b) 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 and (c) 14.04.2007 to 24.01.2008 (Annexure-5 series). He has also challenged the Annexure-7 office memorandum dated 26.04.2011 by which his representation against the purported adverse remarks in the ACRs for the aforesaid periods has been rejected. Further prayer made in this writ petition is to consider his case for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer without taking note of the purported adverse remarks pertaining to the said periods. I have heard Mr. I.H. Saikia along with Ms. S. Kanangoe, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Dasgupta, learned CGC. None has appeared for the private respondent.

2. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the pleadings in the writ petition as well as the documents annexed to the writ petition, submits that there was improper consideration of the case of the petitioner towards recording overall gradings, but for which the petitioner would have earned the bench mark "very good" entitling him to a meaningful consideration for promotion to the post Superintending Engineer. Placing reliance on the decisions reported in (i) (2008) 8 SCC 725 (Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and ors.), (ii) (2009) 16 SCC 146 (Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India and ors.), (iii) 2011 (1) GLT 614 (U.C. Panda (Dr.) vs. Union of India and ors.), (iv) (1996) 2 SCC 363 (U.P. Jal Nigam and ors. vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain and ors.), (v) (1997) 4 SCC 7 (State of U.P. vs. Yamuna Shanker Misra and anr.) and (vi) AIR 1984 SC 531 (Amar Kant Choudhury vs. State of Bihar and ors.), Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the overall gradings pertaining to the ACRs in question were below the bench mark, the same ought to have been communicated to him and that without communicating the same, the case of the petitioner could not have been rejected. He also submits that as per the own guidelines of the authority, in case of down grading the overall grading given by the Initiating and Reviewing authority, the Accepting authority is obliged to record reasons thereof and in absence of any such reasons, such down grading of the ACRS is not sustainable in law.

3. Per contra, the learned CGC submits that since the petitioner has been communicated with the adverse remarks entitling him to make representation against the same, but he having failed to pursue the authority to take a different view of the matter, this Court exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not sit on appeal over the findings recorded by the authority. The representation of the petitioner has also been rejected vide the impugned Annexure-7 office memorandum dated 26.04.2011. Referring to the records of the DPC and the procedure thereof, he submits that the DPC being an independent body, it had considered the gradings in the ACRs independent of the overall gradings given by the two authorities responsible for writing ACRs and as such the findings arrived at by the DPC cannot be interfered with by exercising the writ jurisdiction.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the entire material on record including the records produced by Mr. Dasgupta, learned CGC. Upon consideration of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, my findings and conclusions are as follows:

5. For promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, an officer is required to have the bench mark of three "very good" in the ACRs preceding five years of the consideration year. In paragraph-7 of the writ petition supported by the relevant records annexed to the writ petition, the petiti