( 1 ) SMT. R. Nalinl Devi, in her petition under Art. 226, asks this Court to quash the adverse remarks in her confidential reports written by the government for the years 1968 and 1969. ( 2 ) THE Confidential Report for the year 1968 reads thus:" Not quite up to the mark to be a Principal of a B. Ed. , College; lacks in resourcefulness and drive. An Officer of mediocre ability and attainment". The Confidential Report for the year 1989 reads: "could not produce the expected results. " ( 3 ) THE petitioner was eligible for promotion to the cadre of Joint director of Public Instruction. She was then a Principal of a college. The Departmental Promotion Committee considered her case and found her unsuitable in view of the adverse remarks in her Confidential Reports. Her juniors who were considered suitable were selected. The promotion was by selection and not on the basis of Seniority as per the Cadre and recruitment Rules. ( 4 ) THE petitioner complains that the adverse remarks against her were arbitrarily written and it did not reflect the proper assessment of her work as Principal. She states that she discharged her duties with ability and merit, whereever she was posted. She, therefore, prays that those adverse remarks should be quashed and her case should be considered again for promotion. ( 5 ) THE writing of confidential reports is governed by the Rules called the Mysore Civil Services (Confidential Reports) Rules, 1965, Rule 3 provides :" In respect of every Gazetted and non-Gazetted Officer an Annual confidential Report shall be recorded assessing as correctly as possible such officer's physical, mental and moral suitability for his office and for promotion, his ability to apply intelligibly the law and procedure prescribed to cases coming before him, his treatment of his subordinates and behaviour to his superiors and colleagues in other departments and his relations with the public. "rule 5 provides :" Preparation and transmission of Reports. The following provisions shall be applicable in respect of the preparation and transmission of Confidential Reports, namely :- (a) The report shall be written or typed by the officer preparing the report. "rule 5 provides :" Preparation and transmission of Reports. The following provisions shall be applicable in respect of the preparation and transmission of Confidential Reports, namely :- (a) The report shall be written or typed by the officer preparing the report. To facilitate identification, the name of the Officer recording the report shall be written in black letters below his signature and his designation also indicated (b) The name and designation of the officer in respect of whom the report is recorded shall be specified in full and in the same manner as shown in the Civil List or the Service Booh (c) The report shall, unless otherwise prescribed, be made in the first instance by the officer under whose administrative control the officer in respect of whom the report is recorded is working and passed on to the next higher officer who shall add His remarks, if any, before passing it on. If the officer through whom a report passes has no knowledge of the work of the officer reported upon, he shall record a statement accordingly. (d) An Officer preparing a confidential report shall record all relevant observations and opinions which he might have formed, which shall be a frank and full appraisal of the officer's merits and demerits giving as far as possible specific instances or reasons for the particular opinions he has expressed. A report shall be prepared with the greatest caution and no record or remarks shall be made lightly on the spar of the moment or based on prejudice. "the immediate superior so far as the petitioner is concerned is the director of Public Instruction, According to the Rules, he will have to record his report and then transmit it to the Govermerit. The confidential reports shall be recorded with full sense of responsibility and with greatest caution and no record of remarks shall be made lightly so as to damage the career of any official. The report should be a frank and full Appraisal of the officer's merits and demerits. So far as the demerits are concerned, as far as possible they should be supported by specific instances or reasons. ( 6 ) THE Confidential Report of the petitioner in respect of the year 1968, in my opinion, was in accordance with the Rules. It was an assessment and appraisal of the merits and demerits of the petitioner. So far as the demerits are concerned, as far as possible they should be supported by specific instances or reasons. ( 6 ) THE Confidential Report of the petitioner in respect of the year 1968, in my opinion, was in accordance with the Rules. It was an assessment and appraisal of the merits and demerits of the petitioner. It states "she is not quite up to the mark to be a Principal of a B. Ed. , College. She lacks in resourcefulness and drive and she is an officer of mediocre ability and attainment". This report cannot be vague But tho report for the year 1969 is very vague. It simply states "that the petitioner could not produce the expected results". Nobody knows what the expected results which the petitioner failed to produce. Such vague report should not be ralied upon by the Departmental Committee for rejecting the petitioner's ease for promotion. ( 7 ) ORDINARILY, it is not open to this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under arts. 226 and 227, to consider the correctness of the confidential report written by the competent authority against any official. This Court cannot sit in judgment on the assessment and appraisal of the petitioner's merits and demerits made by the competent authority, unless it is shown that that report was written with ulterior motives, or with prejudice or with an evil design to deprive the petitioner her chances of promotion. The petitioner has not substantiated her allgations except stating that the reports were written with a view to deprive her of the promotional post. ( 8 ) IN a case like this the Court cannot make any investigation, about the correctness of the record made in the confidential reports. Provision is made by R. 8 of the Rules to communicate the remarks to the petitioner. Under Rule 8, the petitioner has a right of representation against the adverse re-marks communicated to her. The petitioner has already made such a representation to the Secretary to Government, Department of education and that representation was said to have been considered and rejected. ( 9 ) MR. MURALIDHAR Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relied upon the decision of this Court in P. V. Munavalli v. State of Mysore, 1967 2 Mys. L. J. 484. The petitioner has already made such a representation to the Secretary to Government, Department of education and that representation was said to have been considered and rejected. ( 9 ) MR. MURALIDHAR Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relied upon the decision of this Court in P. V. Munavalli v. State of Mysore, 1967 2 Mys. L. J. 484. It was a case in which this Court found that the confidential report was very vague This Court also held that such vague confidential reports should not be the basis for rejecting the case of the petitioner. Such is not the case before me. The confidential report for the year 1968, as I have already stated, is very specific and it could form one of the basis for holding that the petitioner was not suitable for promotion to the cadre of Joint Director of public Instruction. ( 10 ) THE next question is whether it ts necessary to direct the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in the view that I held that report for the year 1969 is very vague. I would have directed so, if the opinion of the departmental promotion committee was solely based on the confidential reports for the years 1968 and 1969. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the said Commttee considered the case of the petitioner on all aspects and not merely on the two confidential reports. The Committee considered several other factors like special equipment of the post, aptitude and general competence. That being the position, no useful purpose would be served by directing the authorities to re-consider the case of the petitioner. ( 11 ) IN the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .