1 wp-5289-11.sxw dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5289 OF 2011 Narendra Kumar Bansal .... Petitioner vs Union of India and anr. .... Respondent Mr. G.K. Masand with Mr.A.A. Manwani for the petitioner. Mr. T. J. Pandian for respondents/Union of India. CORAM: D. K. DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : December 21, 2011 P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides. 2 The CAT has correctly appreciated the controversy and has correctly considered that as the records for 5 years of service was to be considered. Out of those 5 years, the Petitioner has average remarks for 3 years, good remarks for one year and very good remark for one year and, therefore, according to the Tribunal, the consideration of the Petitioner was correctly done. The learned counsel appearing for 2 wp-5289-11.sxw the Petitioner submits that average remark was not communicated to the Petitioner and therefore could not have been considered. However, as the average remark does not disentitle the Petitioner from consideration for promotional post, in our opinion, it is not required to be communicated. There is no substance in the Petition. The same is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D. K. DESHMUKH,J.)