IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.:2320/2008 Decided on: 5.3. 2009 Jeet Singh Pujyar. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) Certain adverse remarks were recorded in the ACR of the petitioner. He made a detailed representation against the same. However, the representation made by the petitioner dated 21.2.1992 was rejected by the competent authority on 30.9.1992 without a speaking order. The recording of ACRs is a serious business. It has to be done objectively and not subjectively. The entries made in the ACRs are generally seen at the time of considering the incumbent for higher promotion. In the present case once the petitioner has made a representation against the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR, the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 same was bound to be considered and decided by a speaking order. A bare perusal of order 30.9.1992 shows that the same is non-speaking. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.9.1992 is quashed and set aside. The competent authority i.e. Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh is directed to decide the representation afresh in accordance with law. He will pass a speaking order. In case the remarks are expunged, the petitioner will be held entitled to all the consequential benefits. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 5.3.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*