Judgment :- The Petitioner is horn with a double handicap - a woman and a member of a scheduled caste. She complains that her valiant efforts to climb higher ladders of Civil Service were throttled as a result of a system found unsatisfactory and arbitrary by the Supreme Court more than a decade and halfback. 2. Pursuant to a recruitment under the Special Recruitment Programme through the Public Service Commission, the petitioner was appointed as a Headmistress on 1-6-1972. She acquired full eligibility for being promoted loathe cadre of District Educational Officer and was shown as senior to respondents 4 to 13 in the seniority list of Gazetted Officers in the teaching staff of the Education Department. When Departmental Promotion Committee met on 27-3-1982 and prepared a select list of officers 111 for promotion to the cadre of District Educational Officers, petitioner's name was not included therein while her juniors, respondents 4 to 13, found place in the list. She made a representation on 15-4-1982 before the 3rd respondent objecting to her super session. She was not favoured with a reply. While so, the Departmental Promotion Committee again met on 4-6-1982 and another list was drawn up in which her name was included as SI. No. 1. 3. The select lists (Exts. P1 and P2) mentioned above would not show that they were for any particular year. Pursuant to the inclusion of petitioner's name-in Ext. P2 list, she was promoted as District Educational Officer under Order dt. 15-7-1982. Since the petitioner did not receive a reply to her objection against Ext. P1 list, she made a further representation before the Government on 14-3-1987. Not only that she was denied a reply, but the 4th respondent was granted further promotion to the cadre of Dy. Director, though provisionally, by order dt. 5-5-1983. This provoked a further representation from petitioner dt. 7-10-1983 which also shared the same fate as the earlier representations. Later, by order dt. 18-6-1984, promotion was given to the petitioner as Dy. Director of Education. Aggrieved by the total disregard of the authorities towards her complaint, she filed O.P.No.10629/84 before this Court. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it was contended that the petitioner was superseded inExt.P1 list as there were adverse entries in her confidential report for the period from 1-1-1979 to 20-5-1981. Director of Education. Aggrieved by the total disregard of the authorities towards her complaint, she filed O.P.No.10629/84 before this Court. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it was contended that the petitioner was superseded inExt.P1 list as there were adverse entries in her confidential report for the period from 1-1-1979 to 20-5-1981. It was also staled therein that the Departmental Promotion Committee, at its meeting held on 11-1-1983, affirmed its earlier decision. According to the petitioner, she was never informed of such a decision taken on 11-1-1983. 4. The original petition was disposed of by Ext. P3 judgment dt. 9-6-1987 directing the petitioner to file a representation before the Government as contemplated by R.29 of K.S. and S.S.R. Ext. P4 is the copy of the representation thus filed by her. Government affirmed the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee. The reason given therein reads as follows: "The Departmental Promotion Committee held on 27-3-1082 to prepare the select list to the cadre of District Educational Officer overlooked you because of adverse remarks recorded in your confidential report for the year 1979 and also because of the fact that there was not much improvement in the reports up to 1981:. 5. The petitioner would contend that her 's is a classic case which would show as to how the entire career of a civil servant could be destroyed by a reporting officer not strictly following the Rules for writing confidential reports. R.28(b)(1)(4) of K.S.& S.S.R. reads as follows: "(b) During the first six months of the year action shall be taken to make all the confidential reports up to date, adverse remarks communicated, and orders for expunging such remarks issued wherever necessary. Simultaneously seniority lists shall also be made up to date and probation of officers in the field of choice declared. Confidential Reports and seniority lists shall be made- up to dale before 30th June." 6. She would submit that the procedure followed in her case is in total disregard of the above provisions as also the directives given by the Supreme Court repeatedly on the subject. She has a further case that the so called adverse entry in her confidential report cannot be treated as an adverse entry at all and that the officer who wrote the confidential report had no authority to do the same as he was not the controlling officer. She has a further case that the so called adverse entry in her confidential report cannot be treated as an adverse entry at all and that the officer who wrote the confidential report had no authority to do the same as he was not the controlling officer. These aspects were not properly appreciated by the Departmental Promotion committee and the Government, is the complaint of the petitioner in this original petition. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, the only reason given for super session of the petitioner was the adverse remarks entered in her confidential report for the year 1979 and her lack of improvement as evident from the confidential reports for the years 1980 up to May, 1981. 8. An examination of Exts. P5, P6 and P7 confidential reports would show that there is substantial basis for the attack made by the petitioner on these reports. Following are the patent irregularities found in them: Ext. P5-This report is for the year 1979. But it seen written only on 11-3-1981. It contains the adverse remark which was relied on by the D.P.C. to find the petitioner not fit to be included in Ext. P1 select list. The meeting of the D.P.C. was on 27-3-1982. The adverse entry was shown to the petitioner only on 16-2-1982, that is, just one month before the D.P.C. met. Ext. P6- This report is for the year 1980. It does not bear any date. There is no other material available to indicate the date on which this report was made by the reporting Officer. It was shown to the petitioner only on 8-3-1982, just few days before the meeting of the D.P.C. It does not contain any adverse remarks. Ext. P7 - This report is for the period from 1-1-1981 to 20-5-1981. Its position is worse than Ext. P6. It contains neither the name nor signature of the reporting officer nor any dale. It was shown to the petitioner on 8-3-1982, just few days before D.P.C. meeting. It also does not contain any adverse remarks. Petitioner has a case that Exts. P5, P6 and P7 were written only in 1982, just before they were shown to her. Admittedly, the reporting officer had been transferred as Director of Harijan Welfare Department in May, 1981. In Ext. It also does not contain any adverse remarks. Petitioner has a case that Exts. P5, P6 and P7 were written only in 1982, just before they were shown to her. Admittedly, the reporting officer had been transferred as Director of Harijan Welfare Department in May, 1981. In Ext. P6, the designation of the reporting officer is shown as Director of Harijan Welfare Department. Therefore, it is clear that the report was written only after May, 1981. 9. The very basic purpose underlying the system of writing confidential reports by the superior officers, namely, to give the officer concerned a chance to improve during subsequent period, after receiving adverse remarks in the confidential report, has been totally defeated in the present case. The reason for the super session, according to first report is that there was an adverse remark in the report for the year 1979 and that the petitioner had not shown any improvement during the year 1980 and 1981. The confidential report in the year 1979 and 1980 were communicated to the petitioner only in the year 1982. Therefore there was no opportunity for the petitioner to rectify during the years 1980 and 1981, the alleged deficiency reflected in the report for the year 1979. Before her confidential reports for all the three years were brought before the D.P.C., there was no time for the first respondent to consider petitioner's objection regarding the adverse entry and to decide whether it was sustainable at all. 10. As early as in 1979, Chief Justice Chandrachud had pointed out the absolute necessity of communicating adverse remarks and confidential reports to the person concerned sufficiently early. In Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1979 SC 1622, it was held: "The principle is well-settled that in accordance with the rules of natural justice, an adverse report in a confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality its object, partially, being to enable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality its object, partially, being to enable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, not arising out of any fault on the part of the appellant, though the adverse report was communicated to him, the Government has not been able to consider his explanation and decide whether the report was justified. In these circumstances, it is difficult to support the non-issuance of the integrity certificate to the appellant" 11.Amar Kant Chodharyv. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1984 SC 531, the case of a Deputy Superintendent of Police was not considered by the Selection Committee for promotion to Indian Police Service cadre and his name was not included in the select list by the Selection Committee due to some adverse remarks in his confidential rolls which were either not communicated to him or against which the representation made by him remained undisposed of at the time of the meeting of the Selection Committee. Later, the adverse remarks were expunged. It was held that the consideration of the officer's case by the Committee was not in a just and fair manner and also totally opposed to the principles laid down in Gurdial Singh'sacs. After giving necessary directions to reconsider the officers case, Venkataramiah a) as his Lordship then was, considered in detail the draw back of the system of entering the adverse remarks in the roll of officers, and gave suggestions in the following manner: "Before concluding, we wish to state that the Central Government and the State Governments should now examine whether the present system of maintenance of confidential rolls should be continued. Under the present system, entries are first made in the confidential roll of an officer behind his back and then he is given an opportunity to make a representation against any entry that may have been made against him by communicating the adverse entry after considerable delay. Any representation made by him would be considered by a higher authority or the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be, some years later as it has happened in this case by which time any evidence that may be there to show that the entries made were baseless may have vanished. Any representation made by him would be considered by a higher authority or the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be, some years later as it has happened in this case by which time any evidence that may be there to show that the entries made were baseless may have vanished. The predicament in which the officer against whom adverse remarks are made is then placed can easily be visualised. Even then authority which has got to pass orders on the representation of the officer will find it difficult' to deal with the matter satisfactorily after a loing interval of time. In the meanwhile the offer concerned would have missed many opportunities which would have advanced his prospects in the service. In order to avoid such a contingency, the Government may consider the introduction of a system in which the officer who has to make entries in the confidential roll may be required to record his remarks in the presence of the officer against whom remarks are proposed to be made after giving him an opportunity to explain any circumstance that may appear to be against him with the right to make representation to higher authorities aginst any adverse remarks. This course may obviate many times totally baseless remarks being made in the confidential roll and would minimise the unnecessary suffering to which the officer concerned will be exposed. Another system which may be introduced is to ask the officer who records the confident ial remarks to serve a copy of such remarks on the officer concerned before the confidential roll is submitted to the higher authorities so that his representation against the remarks may also reach the higher authority shortly after the confidential roll is received. This would curtail the delay in taking action on the representation. Suspensions, adverse remarks in confidential rolls and frequent transfers from one place to another are ordered or made many a time without justification and without giving a reasonable opportunity to the officer concerned and such actions surely result in the demoralization of the Services. Courts can give very little relief in such cases. The Executive itself should, therefore, devise effective means to mitigate the hardship caused to the officers who are subjected to such treatment. Courts can give very little relief in such cases. The Executive itself should, therefore, devise effective means to mitigate the hardship caused to the officers who are subjected to such treatment. These questions require to be examined afresh in the light of the experience gained in recent years and solutions should be found to eliminate as far as possible complaints against m issue of these powers by official superiors who may not be well disposed towards the officer against whom such action is taken. It is needless to state that a non-disgruntled bureaucracy adds to the efficiency of administration." But, unfortunately, the Executive has not yet devised any effective means to mitigate the hardship caused to the officers as pointed out by the apex court, nearly a decade back. On the other hand, the facts of the present case would clearly show even in cases where no malafides is alleged against the reporting officer, his gross failure to comply with the norms coupled with the indifference, can also mar the career of subordinate officers. 12. In a later decision also, State ofHaryana v. P.C. Wadhwa, I.P.S.,Inspector General of Police and another, AIR 1987 SC 1201 the Supreme Court frowned upon the inordinate delay in communicating adverse remarks to the officer concerned. In BaidyanathMahapatra v. State ofOrissa& another, air 1989 SC2218, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider a case where government servant was denied promotion to a higher post on the basis of adverse entries. The adverse entries for the years 1969-70,1970-71,1972-73 and 1975-76 were communicated in a lot to the officer in 1978 and adverse entries relating to the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 were taken into account by the review committee in formulating its opinion against the officer's retention in service. His representation against those entries had not been considered yet, the review committee placed reliance on those entries. The adverse remarks for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 were communicated to the officer on 5-7-1983 and 9-8-1983 respectively. He made a representation before the Government immediately. But, before the appellant's representation could be considered by the Government, the review committee placed reliance on those entries and decided to retire the officer prematurely. The adverse remarks for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 were communicated to the officer on 5-7-1983 and 9-8-1983 respectively. He made a representation before the Government immediately. But, before the appellant's representation could be considered by the Government, the review committee placed reliance on those entries and decided to retire the officer prematurely. It was held by the Supreme Court that since the period prescribed for making the rectification against the adverse remarks for the years 1981-82,1982-83 had not expired, the proper course for the review committee was not to consider those entries or in the alternative, the review committee should have waited for the decision of the Government on the officer's representation. 13. The principles laid down in the above mentioned cases are directly applicable in the present case. The adverse remarks entered in the confidential report for the year 1979 is alleged to be the only reason for superseding the petitioner. The entry itself was made highly belatedly and the petitioner was communicated the same still late. 14. It is relevant to note the nature of the adverse entry in Ext. P5 at this juncture. It was as follows: "Oral warning was administered in connection with the behaviour to colleagues." Petitioner has a case that no such warning was administered on her. It is highly unsafe to rely on such an adverse entry made by the reporting officer two years after the alleged incident. The colorless entries made in Exts. P6 and P7 are also not liable to be taken into consideration for the reason of their inherent infirmities. The fact that the reporting officer was not acting in a fair and just manner in writing Exts. P5, P6 and P7 is clear from Ext. P8 confidential reports for the remaining period of 1981, while the petitioner was working as a Headmistress. The entries in Ext. P8 made by two different reporting officers pay tributes to the petitioner. It is significant to note that Ext. P8 confidential reports were communicated to the petitioner earlier than Exis.P5, P6 and P7. 15. P8 confidential reports for the remaining period of 1981, while the petitioner was working as a Headmistress. The entries in Ext. P8 made by two different reporting officers pay tributes to the petitioner. It is significant to note that Ext. P8 confidential reports were communicated to the petitioner earlier than Exis.P5, P6 and P7. 15. Rule 28(b)(i)(7)(v) of K.S. and S.S.R. reads as follows: "(v) A censure under R.11(1)(i) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1960 or a warning awarded or proposed to be awarded to an Officer need not be taken into account while considering his case for promotion under Notes (ii), (iii) and (iiia) above." It is the contention of the petitioner that if a warning given as punishment to an officer after disciplinary proceeding is to be ignored in the matter of his promotion, a warning alleged to have been given to her in the manner detailed above should not have weighed with the Departmental Promotion Committee, especially in the light of the provisions contained under R.28(b)(i)(3) which reads as follows: "(13) Candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall not be superseded for appointment to Selection categories or grades by the application of too rigid a standard of suitability. The Departmental Promotion Committees may consider the case of such candidates sympathetically by relaxing the standard of suitability where possible, and only the claims of those whom the committee considers unsuitable even by the relaxed" standards should be superseded for appointment to such selection categories or grades", 16. I find no merit in the justification attempted in the counter affidavit that respondents 4 and 5 included in the select list are also members of the Scheduled Castes. It is not respondents 4 and 5 who alone are included in the select list superseding the petitioner. There are number of other juniors of the petitioner who arc not members of scheduled castes seen included in Ext. P1 list. The contention of the respondents that it was only the oral warning awarded to the petitioners reflected in Ext. PS which resulted in her super session is a clear indication that the Departmental Promotion Committee had not applied its mind to the beneficial provisions provided under R.28(b)(i)(13). 17. P1 list. The contention of the respondents that it was only the oral warning awarded to the petitioners reflected in Ext. PS which resulted in her super session is a clear indication that the Departmental Promotion Committee had not applied its mind to the beneficial provisions provided under R.28(b)(i)(13). 17. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the authoritative decisions on the subject, I am of the view that the supersession of the petitioner in Ext. P2 list was totally unjustified for the following reasons: (i) The confidential report Ext. P5 was not written in accordance with rules. The oral warning alleged to have been awarded on the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration for assessing her merit since it is not safe to rely on that entry which was made two years after the relevant period, especially in the light of the denial of the petitioner as to the very fact of award of warning. (ii) If an oral warning is not to be taken into consideration for promotion even in the case of an officer against whom disciplinary proceeding had been taken it should have been ignored in the case of the petitioner, particularly in view of rule 28(b)(i)(13) of K.S. and S.S.R.(iii) The confidential report Ext. P6 which does at contain the date and the coincidental report Ext. P7 which contain neither the date nor the signature of the reportingofficerare lobe totally ignored.(iv) The confidential reports were communicated to the petitioners late that she had no occasion to show improvement or to get the adverse entries considered by the superior suthoritics, (v) A reading of the confidential reports Exts. P5, P6 and P7 written by the same reporting officer in the circumstances detailed above and Ext. P8 confidential report written by two other officers immediately thereafter, would show that the reporting officer had not acted in a fair and reasonable manner while writing Exts. P5, P6 and P7. (vi) There is a total disregard of the provisions contained under Rule 28(b)(i)(13). 18. Since the authorities have no case that apart from the adverse entry in Ext. P8 confidential report written by two other officers immediately thereafter, would show that the reporting officer had not acted in a fair and reasonable manner while writing Exts. P5, P6 and P7. (vi) There is a total disregard of the provisions contained under Rule 28(b)(i)(13). 18. Since the authorities have no case that apart from the adverse entry in Ext. P5 and her not showing improvement, there are other reasons for superseding the petitioner and since I have already found that those reasons are untenable, I do not find it necessary to send back the matter directing the Departmental Promotion Com mi I tee to consider petitioner's claim for inclusion in Ext. P1 list afresh. In the light of the above, I quash Ext. P9 and declare that the petitioner was entitled to be included in Ext. P1 list. The respondents are directed to include the petitioner's name in Ext. P1 select list with due ranking forthwith and publish the same in accordance with rules. The petitioner will be entitled to all benefits pursuant thereto including earlier promotion than her juniors, respondents 4 to 13. The original petition is allowed as above.