IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7617 of 2010 1. RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH, S/O TRIVENI SINGH, R/O ASHIANA NAGAR,P.S.-RAJEEV NAGAR,DISTRICT- PATNA. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,NEW DELHI. 2. THE SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,NEW DELHI. 3. THE SECRETARY, UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DHOLPUR HOUSE, SHAHJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI. 4. THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL,CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE,13 CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,NEW DELHI. 5. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL,CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE,PATNA. 6. THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND TRAINING, GOVT. OF INDIA,NEW DELHI. 7. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL,PERSONNEL,CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA,NEW DELHI. 8. THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL,PERSONNEL,CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA,NEW DELHI. 9. SHRI S.A.NAEEM, THEN COMMANDANT, CISF, AT BCCL DHANBAD IN 2003-04 AS REPORTING AUTHORITY IN THE ACR, NOW DIG, CISF, RTC, BHILAI. 10. SHRI H V CATURVEDI, THEN DIG,CISF, BCCL DHANBAD IN 2003-04 AS REVIEWING AUTHORITY IN THE ACR, NOW IG HQR. CISF, NEW DELHI. 11. SHRI B.S.VERMA,THEN COMMANDANT,CISF, BCCL,DHANBAD IN 2004-05 AS REPORTING AUTHORITY IN THE ACR NOW RETIRED, ADDRESS- VILLAGE- KOTHIJAMOGIKI MATHER,P.O-PALANIYA, VIA. ARKI POLICE STATION, DISTRICT-SOLAN (H.P.) PIN-173208. 12. SHRI S K MONDAL,THEN DIG,CISF,BCCL,DHANBAD IN 2004-05 AS REVIEWING AUTHORITY IN THE ACR. - 2 - 04/ 14.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7.4.2010, passed by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF serving in the office of the Director General, CISF, New Delhi, whereunder request of the petitioner to revise his confidential remarks for the period 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2007-08 to "Very Good" has been rejected. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that during the year 2003-04, the Reporting Authority assessed him as “Good”, but the Review Authority made it “Average”, however, the Accepting Authority made it “Good”. For the year 2004-05, the Reporting Authority assessed the petitioner as “Average”, which was accepted by the Reviewing and the Accepting Authority. For the Year 2007-08, the Reporting Authority assessed the petitioner as “Very Good”, the Reviewing Authority, however, reduced it to "Average" and Accepting Authority also agreed with the Reviewing Authority. It is further submitted that the representation of the petitioner to assess him “Very Good” for the aforesaid three years has been rejected under the - 3 - impugned order dated 7.4.2010, Annexure-21 without giving any reason and the orders has also been passed by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF who is the Reviewing Authority himself and could not have granted the relief to the petitioner, as he was bound by the opinion of the Inspector General, the Accepting Authority. 4. From the counter affidavit, it appears that under the Rules, no Authority has been provided with the jurisdiction to consider the representation against the remarks given by the Accepting Authority, in the circumstances, the representation of the petitioner filed in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 23.11.2009, Annexure-14 was placed for consideration before the Director General, CISF, who is the highest Authority in the CISF and the Director General found the representation of the petitioner bereft of any merit. 5. Under my earlier order, I had asked the competent authority to consider the request of the petitioner to revise the remarks for the period between 9.12.2002 till 12.3.2009 from Average/ Good to Very Good as also to consider the case of M/s Pradeep Kumar Bharti and Amit - 4 - Saran, who were not assessed as “Very Good” for the preceding three years, yet were promoted as Commandant. Order dated 7.4.2010, Annexure-21, which has been passed by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF with the approval of the Director General, CISF does not indicate either the reasons for not revising the remarks of the petitioner for the years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2007-08 from “Good”/ “Average” to “ Very Good” as also does not indicate the reasons for promoting M/s Pradeep Kumar Bharti and Amit Saran, who were not assessed "Very Good" in the three preceding years. 6. Order dated 7.4.2010, Annexure-21 may have been made by the highest Authority of the CISF. Order bereft of reasons is no order in the eye of law and suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which is, accordingly, set aside with direction to the Director General of the CISF to reconsider the representation of the petitioner filed in compliance of the earlier orders of this Court dated 23.11.2009, Annexure-14 in the light of the observations made above and pass fresh order after giving petitioner or - 5 - his representative an opportunity of being heard. The order should be passed, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order before the Director General, CISF. 7. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ (V. N. Sinha, J.)