The central legal point established in the judgment is that adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report (A. C. R.) should be objectively assessed and communicated to the incumbent for explanation. The denial of promotion based on such remarks must be justified and cannot be considered adverse if it is not objectively adverse.

N. N. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) THE grievance voiced by the petitioner in the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that he has been wrongly deprived of promotion on the post of Deputy Commandant, while persons junior to him have been promoted vide order dated 13-2-1998. Initially, the petitioner approached to the Jammu and kashmir High Court by way of writ petition for redressal of the said grievance. The respondent bsf took the stand that the petitioner was not considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee because of adverse entry in the A. C. R. for the year 1989/90. However, it was admitted that the said adverse entry was not communicated to the petitioner. In view of this, the Jammu and kashmir High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to communicate the adverse entry to the petitioner. A liberty was also given to the petitioner to make a representation against the said adverse entry. It was observed that if the adverse entry continued against the petitioner, he would not be promoted but if the entries are obliterated, he will be entitled to promotion with retrospective effect. Accordingly, the adverse entries were communicated to the petitioner under communication dated 23rd March, 1998 (Annex. 4 ). The remarks made in the A. C. R of the year 1989-90 as communicated vide anne. 4, reads as follows: "the officer has been assessed as matured, sober, physically tough, energetic with initiative and drive and satisfactory performance while posted in the border area. . . . To be kept under watch. "

( 2 ) THE petitioner made a detailed representation against the said adverse entry. The representation was rejected and in view of the adverse entry, the decision not to promote the petitioner on the post of Deputy Commandant remained intact.

( 3 ) IT is contended by Mr. J. P. Joshi, learned counsel for the Petitioner, that the remarks as communicated to the petitioner in the A. C. R. for the year 1989-90 can not be considered adverse by any standard or stretch of imagination. The recording of personal appraisal of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner may be kept under watch, appears to be only a note of caution. It may, at the most, be considered in the form of advisory. On the other hand, Mr. Vyas, learned counsel appering for the respondents, submits that the remark" to be kept under watch" is significant, serious and adverse, if it is read in totality. It is further submitted that there were certain allegations and complaints against the petitioner of conniving with the smugglers etc. He has invited our attention tothe averments made in para 9 of the reply to the petition. It is further submitted that the petitioners name remained in the list of officers having doubtful integrity for the years 1990 to 1993.

( 4 ) I have considered the rival contentions. It is now well settled that the object of making adverse remarks is to assess the competence of an officer on merits and performance of an officer concerned so as to grade him in the various categories as outstanding, very good, satisfactory and average etc The competent authority and the reviewing authority have to fairly and objectively assess the character, integrity and performance of the incumbent. If in the opinion of the competent authority or reviewing authority, the officer is of doubtful integrity, he is required to make such entry in the A. C. R. Such an entry is communicated to the incumbent so that he may submit his explanation in the instant case, there is nothing to show that there was any entry in the A. C. R. with respect to doubtful integrity of the petitioner The petitioner has been assessed as matured, sober, physically tough with initiative and drive. Further, his performance while posted in border area has been assessed as satisfactory. It is, however, remarked that the petitioner be kept under watch but then there is nothing to further show as to what for he is required