WP(C) 5199/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH Amitava Roy, J The judgment and order dated 9.6.2010 rendered by the learned Ce ntral Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (for short, hereinafter referred t o as ’the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 242/2009 dismissing the challenge to the petiti oner’s representation for expunction of the adverse remarks in his ACRs for the years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 is the subject matter of assailm ent in the instant petition. 2. We have heard Mr B Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered essent ial to issue formal notice. In any view of the matter, none appears for the Unio n of India to represent the official respondents. 4. Shortly put, the relevant facts necessary for disposal of the in stant petition are that the petitioner who was initially appointed as a Circle O rganiser with the respondents was, in due course, promoted to the post of Joint Area Organiser in 1998. He made further progress in his career to be promoted as Area Organiser vide order dated 9.12.2005. The post of Joint Area Organiser is a feeder post for promotion to that of Area Organiser. It is a matter of record that for promotion to the post of Area Organiser the ACRs of the candidate conce rned for the last five years counted backward from the date of his/ her consider ation therefor ought to record very good in any of the three years. According to the petitioner, though he was eligible for promotion to the post of Area Orga niser in terms of the Service Rules from July, 2001, he was denied consideration therefor and was eventually promoted in the month of December, 2005. In between , he submitted a representation which was responded to by the concerned authorit y on 23.5.2003 intimating him that the Departmental Promotion Committee had not recommended his name for promotion as he could not obtain the required bench mar k prescribed therefor. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Central Ad ministrative Tribunal, Patna Bench with O.A. No. 840/2003 which was disposed of directing the respondents to communicate to him his ’Good’ entries leaving him a t liberty to submit an appropriate representation against the same. 5. The petitioner accordingly submitted a representation on 17.6.20 09 challenging the downgrading of his ACRs for the years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999- 2000 and 2000-2001 as communicated to him. By the Memorandum dated 24.9.2009 his representation having been rejected on the ground that the gradings as finally existed in his ACRs for the aforementioned years were endorsable on valid ground s, he assailed this decision before the learned Tribunal at Guwahati in O.A. No. 242/2009. By the impugned judgment and order his challenge having been rejected , he is before this Court. 6. Mr Banerjee has insistently argued that having regard to the ben ch mark for promotion, the entries in the petitioner’s ACRs for the period 1997- 98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 amounted to adverse remarks which essential ly had to be communicated to him forthwith and as there has been an inexplicable delay, he is entitled to be graded ’very good’ for those years. As the opportun ity awarded to him to submit a representation against such remarks at the lapse of a decade is of no significance or worthwhile meaning for all practical purpos es, the Memorandum dated 24.9.2009 rejecting the same mechanically is per se inv alid in law and ought to have been interfered with by the learned Tribunal. The respondent authorities having admittedly failed to communicate the adverse remar ks to the petitioner in time, Mr Banerjee submitted that the same could not have been acted upon against him to his prejudice in the matter of his promotion. 7. That the bench mark for promotion from the post of Joint Area Or ganiser to Area Organiser is ’very good’ in any of the three years in the batch of five years to be taken note of is an admitted fact. It transpires from the wr itten statement filed by the respondents before the learned Tribunal that the pe titioner on the basis of his ACRs for the period 1997-98 to 2001-2002 has been c onsidered for promotion on more than one occasion but as he could not meet the c riteria set therefor, the Departmental Promotion Committee did not recommend him . The petitioner’s ACRs for the period 1997-98 to 2001-2002 relevant for the pur pose of examining his case for promotion in the year 2003 reflect as hereunder: Year Reporting authority Reviewing authority/ Accepting author ity 1997-98 Good Average 1998-99 Good Good 1999-2000 Very Good Good 2000-2001 Good Good 2001-2002 Very Good Very Good It would, thus, appear from hereinabove that the petitioner thou gh was graded as ’Good’ and ’Very Good’ during 1997-98 and 1999-2000 by the repo rting authority, he was downgraded to ’Average’ and ’Good’ respectively by the r eviewing/accepting authority. He, however, was graded as ’Good’ during 1998-99 a nd 2000-2001. 8. Though the petitioner in his representation before the concerned official respondents had claimed that in the face of his consistent performance his final gradings during 1997-98 to 2000-2001 have been incorrect not having b een objectively assessed, the Memorandum dated 24.9.2009 rejecting his represent ation records in clear terms that the diminution of his gradings for the aforeme ntioned years had been on very valid reasons. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order demonstrates that the learned Tribunal on a consideration of the mate rials on record has also returned the same finding. In other words, according to it, the downgrading of the petitioner during 1997-98 and 1999-2000 from ’Good’ to ’Average’ and ’Very Good’ to ’Good’ had been on very valid reasons. 9. In the backdrop of the above facts and in the teeth of the consi stent determinations made by the official respondents on the basis of the contem poraneous records and endorsed by the learned Tribunal, in exercise of this Cour t’s power of judicial review which by its nature is very constricted and to be e xercised on very limited and persuasive grounds, we are not inclined to interfer e. True it is that there had been delay in the communication of the adverse rema rks to the petitioner. However, as in the considered opinion of the official res pondents on a review of his performance they were of the unhesitant view that th e ultimate gradings as recorded in his ACRs during 1997-98 to 2000-2001 are just ifiable on valid reasons, this Court having regard to the endorsement of the abo ve by the learned Tribunal as well, sees no cogent and valid reason to substitut e a different view in lieu thereof. 10. In the above view of the matter, the petition lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.