JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, C.J. - Petitioner and opposite party No. 3 were in initially recruited Gallery Assistants for the State Museum at Bhubaneswar Petitioner was appointed on 19-4-1963 and opposite party No. 3 on 21.6.1963. The post of Gallery Assistant is borne in Class-III Service of the State. Petitioner was promoted as Curator in the Museum in Class-II Service with effect from 2-6-1964 while opposite party No. 3 was so promoted with effect from 14-1-1965. Petitioner was confirmed as Curator on 2.6.1966 while his colleague was so confirmed on 14.1.1967. Opposite party No. 3 came to be promoted as Superintendent of Orissa State Archaeology on ad hoc basis on 1-4-1971 and on 7.10.1971 that appointment were regularized on the basis of the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. That appointment was challenged at the instance of the Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 244 of 1972. It transpired that Petitioner had represented against adverse entries in his confidential character roll and such representation was still pending consideration of the State Government. A Bench of this Court by order dated 14-6-1974 following the ratio of the Full Bench decision in the case of S.S.S. Venkatrao v. State of Orissa and Ors. ILR 1974 Cutt. 227 (F.B.) called upon the State Government to dispose of the representation and directed that if the representation succeeded, Petitioner's case should be reviewed and such measure of justice should be meted out as the matter deserved. Petitioner's representation was rejected by the State Government. Thereupon, this writ application was filed for quashing the entries as also the appointment of opposite party No. 3 and Petitioner claimed appropriate service benefits with retrospective effect from the date opposite party No. 3 got promotion. Several contentions were advanced at the bearing Including one challenging the ratio in the Full Bench decision referred to above. The Division Bench before which this application came up for hearing referred the matter to a larger Bench of 5 Judges for considering the correctness of the rule in the Full Bench decision reported in S.S.S. Venkatrao v. State of Orissa and Ors. ILR 1974 Cutt. 227 (F.B.). The larger Bench came to hold that three questions arose for consideration, namely (i) Are the adverse entires in the Confidential Character Rolls of the Petitioner liable to the quashed? ILR 1974 Cutt. 227 (F.B.). The larger Bench came to hold that three questions arose for consideration, namely (i) Are the adverse entires in the Confidential Character Rolls of the Petitioner liable to the quashed? (ii) Did not allowing the Petitioner to cross the efficiency bar on 8-9-1971 have the effect of wiping out the adverse duties already made in the Confidential Character Rolls? and (iii) Whether the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in S.S.S. Venkatrao v. State of Orissa and Ors. ILR 1974 Cutt. 227 (F.B.) so tar as it Indicates that uncommunicated adverse entries can be utilised and crossing of efficiency bar does not wipe out previous adverse entries is correct or requires review? From paragraph 2 of the judgment of the larger Bench, it appears that Though the whole case has been referred to the larger Bench, counsel for all the parties have agreed that we may confine our examination to the second and third questions and leave the first aspect to be dealt with by a Division Bench on the basis of the law as may be determined by us. In view of this submission, which we accept, we confine our consideration to the second and the third aspects as indicated above. From the judgment of the larger Bench reported in Ramesh Prasad Mahapatra v. State of Orissa through the Secretary to Government of Orissa, Tourism and Cultural Affairs Department and Ors. 40 (1980) C.L.T. 442. It appears that there was unanimous view that the earlier Full Bench decision had correctly laid down the law and both the points considered by the larger Bench were decided against the Petitioner. The first point thus survives now for determination. 2. The adverse entries which are impugned are for the year 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. The particulars are as given below: Date of entry 2-1-1971 Relevant year Text of the entries 1969-70 Good knowledge in his branch of work. His performance was, however, average. Had zeal in work but it was misutilised in party faction in that sman office. Not dependable to manage the establishment with fairness and equity. A review of the report on your work for the year 1970-71 reveals that though capable you lacked devotion to research work and took a long time to organise the Art and Craft Gallery. Your contribution to archaeology was not also significant. Not dependable to manage the establishment with fairness and equity. A review of the report on your work for the year 1970-71 reveals that though capable you lacked devotion to research work and took a long time to organise the Art and Craft Gallery. Your contribution to archaeology was not also significant. 1971-72 A review of the report on your work for 1971-72 reveals that you developed an attitude of indifference to work. Mr. Dora for the Petitioner contends that ephemeral character rolls are not maintained and the remarks were vague and not supported by details. It was also contended that the remarks were written after retirement and transfer of certain officers and were the outcome of malice. It was text contended that the rejection of the representation against adverse remarks communicated after utilisation is without any reasons and is, therefore, bad. 3. The earlier Full Bench decision reported in S.S.S. Venkatrao v. State of Orissa and Ors. ILR 1974 Cutt. 227 (F.B.), clearly indicated in paragraph 24 of the judgment that maintenance of character rolls is not enjoined by any statutes or rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Principles regarding record of confidential reports and communication of adverse remarks have been laid down in Administrative Instructions issued from time to time. The Instructions prescribe guidelines for subordinate officers in making assessment of the worth and calibre of their subordinates. In view of the fact that administrative guidelines required preparation of ephemeral character rolls, merely on the ground that such procedure had not been adopted in the case of the Petitioner these entries cannot be quashed. Reliance was placed on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Madan Mohan Khatua Vs. State of Orissa and Others where in paragraph-7 it has been stated: The Instruction of 1966 also reiterates the need of maintaining an ephemeral character roll. No such roll seems to have been maintained and, at any rate, the opposite party No. 1 has not chosen to produce any such roll The importance of such an ephemeral character roll has been emphasized in the two reported decisions referred to earlier as also by the Full Bench (supra). There is no material on record also to show that there was a contemporaneous intimation to the Petitioner that his conduct suffered from the draw-back of not pulling well with his colleagues. There is no material on record also to show that there was a contemporaneous intimation to the Petitioner that his conduct suffered from the draw-back of not pulling well with his colleagues. The absence of an ephemeral character roll and the fact that the entry has been made though the officer concerned was employed under the reporting officer for less than three months are two important features against the entry. The facts of the case before the Division Bench were very different from the material available on record in this case. If it was a case of mere infraction of the instruction regarding maintenance of ephemeral character roll, we do not think, this Court would have interfered in Madan Mohan Khatua Vs. State of Orissa and Others, . There is no dispute that our jurisdiction in this matter is not appellate. Petitioner's allegation that the entries were out- come of malice has not been established. It is true that the Petitioner alleged that Sri Kasinath Mahapatra, retired Superintendent of Archaeology, had written a letter to the secretary to Government in the relevant Department wherein certain unfavourable remarks were made against the Petitioner. In paragraph 11 of the writ application, an extensive extract from the letter appears. But Petitioner has failed to establish any link between the entries and the letter and we do not think it would be appropriate for us to accept Petitioner's contention that the adverse entry made after 10-4-1971 was the outcome of the allegations contained in the letter. The last contention is that the order of rejection of the representation is a bald one. Dealing with such a contention this Court had observed in Madan Mohan Khatua Vs. State of Orissa and Others thus: ...Undoubtedly, the representation made by the Petitioner to the administrative superior is not required to be disposed of as a revision to a judicial authority. Yet, It IS appropriate that the representation made to the administrative superior is disposed of in such a manner that the representationist is in a position to appreciate that the grievances indicated in the representation were taken into account. A bald order indicating the fact of rejection would not satisfy the aggrieved officer and is likely to create an impression that the merit of the matter has not been taken into account.... This again was an observation in the special facts and circumstances of the case. A bald order indicating the fact of rejection would not satisfy the aggrieved officer and is likely to create an impression that the merit of the matter has not been taken into account.... This again was an observation in the special facts and circumstances of the case. The legal position is clear that in these matters, one cannot look for a judgment in its normal connotation; and read in the background of the counter affidavit, we do not think, on the ground of reasons for rejection of the representation having not been given, any interference is called for. 4. All the three contentions advanced by Mr. Dora are rejected. Consequently, the writ application is dismissed but without any order for costs. B.N. Misra, J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed