IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15839 of 2004 Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sinha, son of late Nemnarayan Prasad, resident of Flat No.3, Tribhuwan Gopal Enclave (Phase I), Khajpura, Town and District Patna 800014 and at present posted as Senior Scientist cum Associate Professor (Plant Breeding) Agricultural Research Institute, Lohiya Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-20 … Petitioner Versus 1. The Chancellor, Universities Of BIHAR, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Raj Bhawan, Patna 2. Rajendra Agricultural Univeristy, Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur through its Registrar having its office at Pusa, Samastipur 3. The Vice Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur 4. The Regional Director, Agricultural Research Institute, Lohiya Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna- 20, (A unit of respondent Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Pusa, Samastipur) … Respondents ----------- 9. 29.6.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner’s promotion under Career Advancement Scheme having been not allowed by the respondent Rajendra Agriculture University despite recommendation of the Selection Committee, he came out before this Court assailing such action on the part of the University on several grounds including infirmity in constitution of the Selection Committee. During the pendency of this writ application the petitioner has superannuated from service and the counsel for the petitioner 2 submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the case of the petitioner is reconsidered in the back drop of the earlier recommendation of the Selection Committee. In the counter affidavit, that has been filed on behalf of the University, a categorical stand has been taken that the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner was evaluated by the authorities of the University to be unsatisfactory and therefore, the promotion under Career Advancement Scheme, which is a merit promotion, was not given to the petitioner. The petitioner by filing a supplementary affidavit has taken a plea that the University had never communicated the alleged adverse entry in the A.C.R. to the petitioner. This plea having been taken by the petitioner only by way of a supplementary affidavit is a new fact and Mr. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the University, is not in a position to answer the same. In the considered opinion of this Court a question of fact with regard to non- communication of the A.C.R. can be looked 3 into by the competent authority of the University and if it is found that the alleged adverse entry in the A.C.R. of the petitioner was never communicated to him, the competent authority of the University will reconsider its decision of not granting the promotion of the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the rival claims of the parties as with regard to communication of the A.C.R. but then the law in this regard is well settled that an un- communicated adverse entry in the A.C.R. cannot be taken into consideration for denying any promotional benefit to an incumbent. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji vs. State of Punjab & ors., reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1622. Thus, this matter is remitted back to the University to reconsider the case of promotion in the aforementioned back drop of the settled principles of law. Such a decision must be taken within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and 4 should also be communicated to the petitioner within the same time limit. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/