1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2426 OF 2000 Union of India .. Petitioner V/s. Shashikant R.Potdar .. Respondent Mr. P.R.Mishra for the Petitioner. Mr.M.S.Karnik for the Respondent. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH and R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 15th SEPTEMBER,2009. P.C. The Petitioner Union of India by this Petition challenges the order passed in Original Application No. 481 of 1996 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai dated 15th December,1999. 2. By that order, the Tribunal has directed the 2 Petitioner to consider the case of the Respondent for promotion to the post of Assistant Mistry ignoring the adverse report for the year 1986. It appears that the Respondent was considered alongwith Respondent No.2 before the Tribunal for promotion to the post of Assistant Mistry. But the Respondent was not found fit for promotion because of adverse report relating to the year 1986. Respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, was promoted. The Respondent in this Petition, therefore filed Original Application challenging the promotion of Respondent No.2 before the Tribunal to the Post of Assistant Mistry and denial of promotion to the Respondent. The challenge was that the Respondent was found unfit for promotion relying on an adverse entry in his Confidential Report relating to the year 1986, which has never been communicated to him. The Tribunal accepted this position. The Tribunal, however, did not set aside the promotion of Respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed that the Petitioner should be considered for promotion in the year 1995 ignoring the adverse report of the year 1986. This order has been challenged in this petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for both 3 the sides. It is became clear from the record that it is an admitted position that the departmental promotion committee in this matter considered the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Mistry but found him unfit for the promotion because of adverse report in his Confidential Report relating to the year 1986. It is common ground that, the said adverse report was never communicated to the Petitioner. The Tribunal, therefore, relied on the well settled law laid down by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments that a Government servant cannot be denied promotion relying on an un- communicated adverse entry made in his confidential record. During the pendency of the Petition the Petitioner has retired from service. Therefore, now there is no question of giving him actual promotion, even if it is found that he is entitled to get promotion in the year 1995. We have not been able to find any error in the order impugned in the petition. We do not find any substance in the present petition. The writ petition is dismissed, rule is discharged with no orders as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.) 4