1 Anando IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2346 OF 2010 Union of India & anr. ..Petitioners V/s. J. P. Shoke ..Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate, for the Petitioners Mr. Anil kumar Joshi, Advocate, for the Respondent CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 30TH MARCH, 2010 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. Mr. Anil kumar Joshi waives notice for the Respondent. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The Tribunal by the impugned decision has proceeded to issue direction to hold Special DPC. It has also directed the Petitioners to moderate the marks for record of service in the manner specified in the order and the Petitioners 2 to conduct viva-voce test for the Respondent with a view to appreciate his suitability for promotion as AEN. 4. The basis on which the Tribunal proceeded to issue the above directions is that the adverse remarks for the year 1997-1998 were not communicated to the Respondent. Before this Court, Counsel for the Respondent, in all fairness, submits that the said finding is error apparent on the face of the record. In as much as, adverse remarks for the said period were duly communicated to the Respondent, who in turn made representation to the Competent Authority. According to the Respondent, the said representation has remained undecided so far. The Petitioners through Counsel assure to decide the said representation, if already not finally decided. That be done within a period of four weeks from today and the decision so taken be communicated to the Respondent within such time. 5. Be that as it may, the Tribunal has proceeded to hold that even the adverse remarks for the year 1998-1999 have not been communicated to the Respondent which have been reckoned for appreciating the suitability of the 3 Respondent. The fact that the said adverse remarks for the year 1998-1999 have not been communicated, is not in dispute before this Court. 6. In this background, the Petitioners are willing to follow the procedure before the case of the Respondent is considered by review DPC. The Petitioners through Counsel state that the Petitioners in the first place shall communicate the adverse remarks for the year 1998-1999 to the Respondent within two weeks from today. It will then be open to the Respondent to make representation against the said adverse remarks, which will have to be submitted within two weeks from the date of receipt of the adverse remarks. The Competent Authority will consider the said representation in accordance with law and communicate its decision to the Respondent not later than four weeks from the submission of the representation. Depending on the outcome of the said decision and the decision on the representation in respect of the adverse remarks for the year 1997-1998 and if the said decisions are adverse to the Respondent, the Respondent may take up the matter before the appropriate forum, if so advised. 4 The review DPC will have to be deferred till the appropriate forum finally decides said challenge of the Respondent. In the event the decision of the Competent Authority on both the representations made by the Respondent is in favour of the Respondent, the Petitioners would take steps to hold review DPC within three months from the date of such decision. 7. Counsel for the Respondent on instructions of the Respondent, who is present in Court, states that the above arrangement is acceptable to the Respondent. 8. It is also agreed before us that the Order passed by the Tribunal would stand modified to the above extent. 9. Accordingly, Petition disposed of on the above terms. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)