ORDER 1. The appellant joined service on 2-5-1983 as Additional District and Sessions Judge on probation for a period of three years. Before the expiry of the period of probation his services were terminated. The order of termination was set aside by this Court and a direction was issued to the High Court to reinstate the appellant with continuity of service and arrears of salary, allowances and other benefits. Thereafter, the High Court considered the appellants confirmation in service and passed orders confirming the appellant with effect from 2-5-1986 although the appellant was entitled for confirmation on 2-5-1985.,It appears that the High Court has proceeded on the assumption that the appellant earned adverse remarks in the year 1984-85 although it is not stated in the order, and the petitioners probationary period was extended for a period of one year more. The material on the basis of which the probationary period was extended for one more year, has not been a placed before us. Presumably the report of 1984-85 awarded by Justice S.P. Goyal, who was the Inspecting Judge, has not been taken into account, on account of the decision of the full court downgrading that entry. This Court while dealing with that report observed: "As regard the confidential roll of the appellant is concerned it is noteworthy that when the High Court considered the matter on 21-3- 1985 the appellants annual report was available only for the first year of his service namely 1983-84. The report for that year was satisfactory. Entry for the year 1984-85 was awarded by Justice S.P. Goyal who was Inspecting Judge on 15-4-1985. He awarded Grade B plus to the appellant which means that the appellants work was good. But this entry could not be taken into consideration by the High Court as it had already taken the decision on 21-3-1985 to dispense with the appellants service. We are distressed to find that when the aforesaid entry for 1984-85 came up for consideration before the full Court of the High Court it modified the same and downgraded the entry from B plus to c which means the appellants work was unsatisfactory. We are distressed to find that when the aforesaid entry for 1984-85 came up for consideration before the full Court of the High Court it modified the same and downgraded the entry from B plus to c which means the appellants work was unsatisfactory. During the hearing we asked the learned counsel appearing for the High Court to produce material on the basis of which the High Court so modified the entry given by Justice S.P. Goyal for the year 1984-85 but he was unable to place any material before us to support the decision of the High Court in modifying the entry. The modification of the entry is therefore without any material and is not sustainable in law. It is thus clear that so far as annual entry on the appellants confidential roll is concerned there was no material against him which could show that the appellants work and conduct was unsatisfactory. " 2. In view of the above observation there was no adverse entry against the petitioner for the year 1984-85. The petitioner was in normal course I entitled to confirmation with effect from 2-5-1985 as no adverse material was there against the petitioners work or conduct. But the High Court has confirmed the petitioner with effect from 2-5-1986 on the premise that the probationary period was extended. No order of the High Court extending probation has been placed before us. Since the initial period of two years probationary period had been completed the petitioner is entitled to be confirmed with effect from 2-5-1985. The High Court was not right in confirming the petitioner w.e.j. 2-5-1986. We, accordingly, direct the High Court to consider the appellants case for his confirmation with effect from 2-5-1985 within two months and if necessary it may hear the officers (on administration side) who may be affected by such decision. The application is accordingly disposed of.