4. Learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently contended that it is a settled position of law that once the entry ‘Good’ is made in the ACR, but the same entry of ‘Good’ has the effect of denial of promotion, then it will have to be considered as adverse, as has been done by the respondent authority. For that purpose, if an employee is making a grievance, his representation deserves to be considered in the right spirit. It has been contended that on the basis of the aforesaid proposition of law, in the case of this very appellant, after a detailed hearing, through a lengthy judgment dated 23.10.2018, learned Single Judge in an earlier round had already observed reconsidering the case positively by specific direction. The authority did not consider the same in its right spirit. That aspect ought to have been considered by learned Single Judge. Mr. Desai, to substantiate his contention, has drawn our attention to a previous order passed in Special Civil Application No.7354 of 2013 dated 23.10.2018. By referring to paragraph Nos.6,7 and 8, a request is made that it is not open for the authority to just close eyes upon such grievance on an evasive consideration that there is no provision for reconsideration. This is nothing but a clear attempt to circumvent the observations made by the Court in an earlier round of litigation. As such, since this material aspect has not been considered by learned Single Judge, the view taken by the Court deserves to be corrected.
