WP(C) 589/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Sri B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U. K. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. As agreed to and in view of the subject matter involved the writ petition is bei ng disposed of at the motion stage. The petitioner claims to be duly selected for promotion to the post of Inspector in the Railway Protection Force. However, according to the petitioner, as there were some uncommunicated adverse remarks in the ACRs of the petitioner for year s 2003 and 2004 the respondents are contemplating to act on the said adverse rem arks to withhold the promotion of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition. Considering the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner the Court by order dated 1 3.2.2009 had required the learned counsel for the respondents to obtain informat ion on the following points:- (1) Whether the petitioner has been selected and placed at Serial No.1 of th e panel for promotion to the post of Inspector, Railway Protection Force. (2) If the petitioner is so selected, whether the respondents contemplate to withhold such promotion on the ground of adverse remarks in the ACRs of the pet itioner, if any, for the years 2003 and 2004. (3) Whether the ACRs of the petitioner for the years 2003 and 2004 were cons idered at the time of selection and if so how the same adverse remarks, if any, in the said ACRs can be resurrected now to withhold promotion to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, instructions have been received by the Sri U. K. Nair, learned counsel for the respondents, which have been placed before the Court. The same are to the effect that the petitioner’s contention that he has been selected for promotion is not correct and in fact on account of below average gradings in tw o of the ACRs i.e. for the years 2003 and 2004 the petitioner has not been empan elled. However, in the written instructions received by Sri Nair it has been men tioned that there are certain uncommunicated adverse remarks in the ACRs of the petitioner of the aforesaid two years i.e. 2003 and 2004 and a process for expun ction of the said adverse remarks is presently on. In the written instructions i t has been further stated that if the adverse remarks in the ACRs of the petitio ner for the two years in question are to be expunged the petitioner’s case for e mpanelment for promotion will be suitably considered. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents the Court is of the view that the appropriate order to be passed in the case would to direct the respond ents to complete the process of consideration of expunction of the adverse remar ks in the ACRs of the petitioner for the years in question at an early date. Sri Nair has submitted that the respondents reasonably expect the said process to b e over within a period of about six weeks. The respondents may so act and therea fter if the adverse remarks are to be expunged further action in the matter of e mpanelment of the petitioner will follow. The Court has been informed that there are 8 posts of Inspectors which are avail able for being filled up by promotion of the General Category candidates to whic h category the petitioner belongs. As the Court had already directed for finalis ation of the process of expunction of the adverse remarks in the ACRs of the pet itioner within a period of six weeks, the Court is of the further view that it w ill be just and proper to permit the respondents to fill up seven posts by way o f promotion from General Category candidates for the present and thereafter fill up the 8th post upon finalisation of the process of expunction of adverse remar ks in the ACRs of the petitioner, as directed. This will dispose of the writ petition. The written instructions placed before the Court by Sri U. K. Nair, learned coun sel for the respondents, be kept on record.