ORDER Nagamohan Das, J. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the communication dated 11.1.1999 the remarks recorded in the confidential record of the petitioner for the year 1998 by the respondents. 2. Petitioner was appointed as District Judge on 16.4.1988 under Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1983 (for short ‘Rules 1983’). The petitioner worked as District Judge in various districts in the State of Karnataka. From 16.1.1996 to 20.1.1997 the petitioner worked as Registrar (Vigilance) of High Court of Karnataka. Further from 21.1.1997 to 4.6.1998 petitioner worked as Secretary to Government, Law Department, Bangalore. The High Court of Karnataka vide notification dated 2.6.1998 has withdrawn the services of the petitioner as Secretary to Government, Law Department and posted him as District Judge, Leave reserve in the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. Accordingly, the petitioner reported for duty on 4.6.1998 as District Judge, Leave reserve, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. On 19.3.99, the petitioner submitted his resignation and the same came to be accepted vide notification dated 14.5.1999. 4. As stated above, petitioner was working as District Judge, Leave reserve, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore from 4.6.1998. The respondents under the impugned communication dated 11.1.1999 communicated to the petitioner the adverse remarks recorded in his confidential record for the period from 4.6.1998 to 26.12.1998. Petitioner by his letter dated 16.1.1999 requested the respondents to furnish certain particulars so as to enable him to make a representation on the remarks recorded in his confidential record. Again on 18.2.1999 and 8.4. 1999, petitioner issued reminders requesting the respondents to furnish certain particulars sought for by him. But the respondents have not replied nor furnished the particulars. Finally on 8.4.1999 petitioner gave a representation requesting the respondents to expunge the adverse remarks recorded in his confidential record as they are without jurisdiction, baseless, unjustified, not bonafide and arbitrary. 5. On 19.3 .1999 the petitioner submitted his resignation and requested to expunge the adverse remarks. The respondents rejected the request to expunge the adverse remarks and recommended to accept the resignation of petitioner. Accordingly, the Government issued notification on 14.5.1999 accepting the resignation of petitioner. Petitioner handed over the charge on 31.5.1999 and he was relieved from the service. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 11.1.1999 recording adverse remarks in his confidential record has filed this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the Government issued notification on 14.5.1999 accepting the resignation of petitioner. Petitioner handed over the charge on 31.5.1999 and he was relieved from the service. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 11.1.1999 recording adverse remarks in his confidential record has filed this writ petition. 7. Sri S.G.Bhagwan, Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the adverse remarks recorded against the petitioner in his confidential record by the Chief Justice had no jurisdiction. The impugned adverse remarks against the petitioner are in violation of Karnataka Civil Service (Performance Report) Rules, 1994 (for short ‘Rules 1994’) and also the instructions issued by the High Court dated 15.11.1988 bearing No.GOB(I)514/83. It is contended that the impugned adverse remarks are without any basis, not bonafide and arbitrary. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: i) Kamalakishore Lakshman Vs. Management of M/s. Pan American Workd Airways Inc., AIR 1987 SC 229 ii) Bishwanath Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2001) 2 SCC 305 iii) State of Bihar Vs. Lal Krishna Advani, AIR 2003 SC 3357 . 8. Per contra Sri H.T.Narendraprasad, learned HCGP for respondents contend that under Article 235 of the Constitution, the High Court is having the power over the District Judges in the matter of appointment, posting, promotion and dismissal. He contends that the impugned adverse remarks made by the Chief Justice of the High Court is within his competence. He justifies the impugned communication of adverse remarks. Reliance is placed on the following decision: The State of West Bengal Vs. Nirependra Nath Bagchi, air 1966 sc 447 9. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers. 10. At this stage it is necessary to notice the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of recording remarks in the confidential record of Judicial officer. In High Court of Punjab Haryana Vs. Ishwar Chand Jain, (1994) 4 SCC 579, it is held as under: “The object of such inspection is for the purpose of assessment of the work performed by the Subordinate Judge, his capability, integrity and competency. Since Judges are human beings and also prone to all the human failings, inspection provides an opportunity for pointing out mistakes so that they are avoided in future and deficiencies, if any, in the working of the subordinate Court, remedied. Since Judges are human beings and also prone to all the human failings, inspection provides an opportunity for pointing out mistakes so that they are avoided in future and deficiencies, if any, in the working of the subordinate Court, remedied. Inspection should act as a catalyst in inspiring Subordinate Judges to give the best results. They should feel a sense of achievement. They need encouragement. They work under great stress and man the Courts while working under great discomfort and hardship. A satisfactory judicial system depends largely on the satisfactory functioning of Courts at grass-root level. Remarks recorded by the Inspecting Judge are normally endorsed by the Full Court and become part of the annual confidential reports and are foundations on which the career of a judicial officer is made or marred. Inspection of a subordinate Court is thus of vital importance. It has to be both effective and productive. It can be so only if it is well-regulated and is workman-like. Inspection of subordinate Courts is not a one-day or an hour or a few minutes’ affair. It has to go on all the year round by monitoring the work of the Court by the Inspecting Judge. A casual inspection can hardly be beneficial to a judicial system. It does more harm than good.” In Bishwanath Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2001) 2 SCC 305 , it is held as under: “33. A number of decisions dealing with the object and purpose of writing confidential reports and care and caution to be adopted while making entries in the confidential records of government officers have been referred to in the cases of Sarnam Singh as also in the case of Ishwar Chand Jain. We need not repeat the same. Suffice it to observe that the well-recognised and accepted practice of making annual entries in the confidential records of subordinate officials by superiors has a public policy and purposive requirement. It is one of the recognised and time-tested modes of exercising administrative and disciplinary control by a superior authority over its subordinates. The very power to make such entries as have potential for shaping the future career of a subordinate officer casts an obligation on the High Courts to keep a watch and vigil over the performance of the members of subordinate judiciary. The very power to make such entries as have potential for shaping the future career of a subordinate officer casts an obligation on the High Courts to keep a watch and vigil over the performance of the members of subordinate judiciary. An assessment of quality and quantity of performance and progress of the judicial officers should be an ongoing process continued round the year and then to make a record in an objective manner of the impressions formulated by such assessment. An annual entry is not an instrument to be wielded like a teachers’ cane or to be cracked like a whip. The High Court has to act and guide the subordinate officers like a guardian or elder in the judicial family. The entry in the confidential rolls should not be a reflection of personal whims fancies or prejudices. likes or dislikes of a superior. The entry must reflect the result of an objective assessment coupled with an effort at guiding the judicial officers to secure an improvement in his performance where need be: to admonish him with the object of removing for future the shortcoming found: and expressing an appreciation with an idea of toning up and maintaining the imitable qualities by affectionately patting on the back of meritorious and deserving. An entry consisting of a few words, or a sentence or two, is supposed to reflect the sum total of the impressions formulated by the Inspecting Judge who had the opportunity of forming those impressions in his mind by having an opportunity of watching the judicial officer round the period under review. In the very nature of things, the process is complex and the formulation of impressions is a result of multiple facts simultaneously playing in the mind. The perceptions may differ. In the very nature of things there is a difficulty nearing an impossibility in subjecting the entries in confidential rolls to judicial review. Entries either way have serious implications on the service career. Hence the need for fairness, justness and objectivity in performing the inspections and making the entries in the confidential rolls. (emphasis given by me) 34. Rules - where they are, else the executive instructions, require that entries in confidential records are made within a specified time soon following the end of the period under review, generally within three months from the end of the year. (emphasis given by me) 34. Rules - where they are, else the executive instructions, require that entries in confidential records are made within a specified time soon following the end of the period under review, generally within three months from the end of the year. Delay in carrying out inspections or making entries frustrates the very purpose sought to be achieved. The mental impressions may fade away or get embellished, not to be restored. Events of succeeding year may cast their shadow on assessment of previous years. Recording of entries for more than one period in one go must be avoided as it is pregnant with the risk of causing such harm as may never be remedied or granting undeserved benefits. We trust and hope the High Courts would have regard to what we have said and streamline the procedure and practice of inspections and recording of entries in confidential rolls so as to achieve regularity, promptness and objectivity inspiring confidence of subordinate judiciary controlled by them. We can only emphasise upon the High Courts the need of vigilantly carrying out the annual inspections at regular intervals and making timely entries in the service records followed by prompt communications to the judicial officers so as to afford them a right of representation in the event of the entry being adverse. We leave the matter at that. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust ( AIR 2007 SC 777 ), it is held as under: 35. This Court also in Board of Trustees of the port of Bombay Vs. Dilip Kumar Raghavendra Natkarni, has observed that right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. 36. It is thus amply clear that one is entitled to have and preserve ones reputation and one also has a right to protect it. In case any authority in discharge of its duties fastened upon it under the law, travels into the realm of personal reputation adversely affecting him, it must provide a chance to him to have his say in the matter. In such circumstances, right of an individual to have the safeguard of the principles of natural justice before being adversely commented upon is statutorily recognized and violation of the same will have to bear the scrutiny of judicial review. (emphasis given by me) 11. In such circumstances, right of an individual to have the safeguard of the principles of natural justice before being adversely commented upon is statutorily recognized and violation of the same will have to bear the scrutiny of judicial review. (emphasis given by me) 11. A confidential record is intended to be a general assessment of the work performed by Judicial Officer. Such reports are maintained for the purpose of serving as a data of comparative merit at the time of promotion, confirmation, extension of service etc. Therefore confidential report of judicial officer is very important from the point of his career in the service. A confidential record shall not ordinarily contain specific incidents and it shall be the overall objective assessment of the judicial officer’s performance. As held by Supreme Court the entry in the confidential record should not be a reflection of personal whims, fancies, likes or dislikes of a superior. Reporting officer is required to write remarks in the confidential records objectively, fairly and dispassionately in a constructive manner in estimating or assessing the character, ability, integrity and responsibility displayed by the officer. The object of entry of remarks in the confidential record is to correct and guide the judicial officer to improve his performance. If there are adverse remarks against any judicial officer the same shall be communicated to him and shall provide an opportunity to explain. A judicial officer who is aggrieved by the adverse remarks has an opportunity of making a representation. Such representation should be considered by a higher authority, who if satisfied would either amend, correct or even expunge a wrong entry. Any deviation in this regard is always subject to judicial review. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as District Judge in the year 1988 under Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules 1983. Rule 3(2) of the Rules, 1983 specifies that all Rules regulating the conditions of service of the members of the State Civil servants made from time to time are applicable to the judicial officers. The Government of Karnataka framed Rules called Karnataka Civil Services (Performance Report) Rules 1994 (for short Rules 1994) prescribing the procedure to be followed in the matter of preparing confidential reports. The High Court of Karnataka vide notification dated 15.11.1988 issued instructions and prescribed specific Formats in the matter of preparing confidential records. The Government of Karnataka framed Rules called Karnataka Civil Services (Performance Report) Rules 1994 (for short Rules 1994) prescribing the procedure to be followed in the matter of preparing confidential reports. The High Court of Karnataka vide notification dated 15.11.1988 issued instructions and prescribed specific Formats in the matter of preparing confidential records. These Rules 1994 and the notification dated 15.11.1988 are binding on the respondents. the recording of remarks in the confidential record of any judicial officer shall be strictly in accordance with the Rules 1994 and the notification. Any deviation in this regard will affect the career of judicial officer and also on his reputation. 13. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred supra, the relevant rules and notification, it is required to examine the fact situation in the present case. At the instance of High Court of Karnataka the Government vide order dated 4.9.1985 bearing No. DPAR 31 SHC 85 sanctioned creation of two posts of leave reserve in the cadre of District Judges and the same reads as under: “The Registrar, High Court of Karnataka has sent proposal for creation of deputation reserve and leave reserve posts in Judicial Department. The Registrar, has stated that regular training and refresher courses to the subordinate Judicial Officers have already commenced and that the services of District Judges, Civil Judges and Munsiffs are spared for imparting training to the Judicial Officers and that regular Court work is hampered. In the circumstances, the Registrar, has proposed to utilise the service of the reserve Judicial Officers by the Director of Training and has therefore prayed for creation of leave reserve posts in the Judicial Department. ORDER After examining all aspects, Government are pleased to sanction the creation of 2(two) posts of Leave Reserve in the Cadre of District Judges. This order issues with the concurrence of Finance Department vide its D.O. Note No. FD 1714/Exp.7/85 dated 22.8.1985. By order and in the, name of the Governor of Karnataka Sd/Deputy Secretary to Government DPAR (Services) 14. From this Government Order dated 4.9.1985 it is clear that creation of leave reserve posts in the cadre of District Judges is for the purpose of imparting training to the judicial officers by the Director of Training. A District Judge who is posted on leave reserve will be on deputation. From this Government Order dated 4.9.1985 it is clear that creation of leave reserve posts in the cadre of District Judges is for the purpose of imparting training to the judicial officers by the Director of Training. A District Judge who is posted on leave reserve will be on deputation. Though the respondents contend that leave reserve posts are different from deputation posts, the same is not substantiated by placing relevant rules or notification. Mere assertion on the part of the respondents that leave reserve posts are different from deputation posts is unacceptable to me particularly in the absence of rules or notification in this regard. Therefore the transfer of petitioner as District Judge, Leave reserve, High Court of Karnataka had arisen in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service and as such the same was deputation. . 15. The High Court of Karnataka assigns the administrative work of the districts to different judges of the High Court. The deputation posts located in Bangalore is also assigned to one of the High Court Judges. During the relevant period from June 1998 to December 1998 the deputation posts located at Bangalore was assigned to Judge of this Court, then Justice T.N.Vallinayagam. Therefore the competent person to record adverse remarks in the confidential record of the petitioner was the concerned administrative Judge i.e. Justice T.N.Vallinayagam and not-then Chief Justice. In the instant case, it was then Chief Justice who had recorded the impugned adverse remarks in the confidential record of the petitioner and the same was without jurisdiction. On this ground the impugned communication of adverse remarks in the confidential record of the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 16. Clause (1) of Rule 2 of Rules 1994 defines the ‘year’ means the financial year beginning on the 1st day of April of a year and ending on 31st day of March of the next year. The notification issued by the respondents on 15.11.1988 clearly specifies that annual confidential report shall be the calendar year. This notification further specifies two reporting forms as Part A and Part B. In Clause (2) of the notification it is specified that in form Part A the report shall be for the period from January to December of an year. The notification issued by the respondents on 15.11.1988 clearly specifies that annual confidential report shall be the calendar year. This notification further specifies two reporting forms as Part A and Part B. In Clause (2) of the notification it is specified that in form Part A the report shall be for the period from January to December of an year. In the instant case the adverse remarks recorded in the confidential record of the petitioner was for the period from June 1998 to December 1998. The period for which the adverse remarks are recorded are not in conformity with the calendar year as specified in Rules 1994 nor the calendar year as specified in the notification dated 15.11.1988. On this ground also the impugned communication of adverse remarks are liable to be quashed. 17. The notification dated 15.11.1988 specifies two report Forms, as Part A and Part B. Clause (2) of this notification specifies that the District Judges shall fill up and submit in duplicate Form Part A in respect of himself to the High Court by 31’1 January each year for taking further action by the High Court. In the instant case, the petitioner~ who was a District Judge had not submitted Form Part A to the High Court. In the absence of Form Part A by the petitioner, the recording of adverse remarks in his confidential record by then Chief Justice is contrary to notification dated 15.11.1988. Therefore the impugned communication of adverse remarks are liable to be quashed. 18. After the communication of impugned remarks dated 11.1.1999, the petitioner by his letter dated 16.1.1999,18.2.1999, 8.4.1999 requested the respondents to furnish certain particulars but in vain. On 8.4.1999 the petitioner gave representation requesting the respondents to expunge the adverse remarks recorded in his confidential record and the same is not considered by the respondents. Under Rule 10 of Rules 1994 the petitioner is entitled to give a representation requesting to expunge the adverse remarks communicated to him. Accordingly, on 8.4.1999 petitioner gave a representation. Rule 10(2) of Rules 1994 mandates the reviewing authority or accepting authority to consider the representation and to pass suitable orders and communicate the same to the concerned officer within three months from the date of receipt of representation. Accordingly, on 8.4.1999 petitioner gave a representation. Rule 10(2) of Rules 1994 mandates the reviewing authority or accepting authority to consider the representation and to pass suitable orders and communicate the same to the concerned officer within three months from the date of receipt of representation. In the instant case, no material is placed on record to show that respondents considered the representation of the petitioner and passed any order and communicated the same to the petitioner. Therefore the impugned remarks are liable to be quashed. 19. In terms of Rules 1994 and the notification dated 15.11.1988 the remarks in the confidential record of a Judicial Officer will be recorded once in a year and for a period of 12 months. In the instant case, the impugned adverse remarks are for a period of 6 months. Therefore the impugned adverse remarks are unusual and the same is not in the normal course. In the impugned adverse remarks it is stated that petitioner is intriguer, conspirator, with doubtful integrity and moral character. It further discloses that petitioner is partial and exhibited communal and caste bias etc. These adverse remarks pertains to the period from June 1998 to December 1998. No material is placed on record to substantiate these adverse remarks. In the absence of any material on record to justify the adverse remarks, it is unjust, arbitrary and illegal to enter these adverse remarks in the confidential record of the petitioner. Therefore the impugned adverse remarks in the confidential record of the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 20. On 19.3.1999 the petitioner submitted his resignation and the same came to be accepted and he was relieved from service on 31.5.1999. In the facts and circumstances of this case the petitioner is not entitled to claim any compensation either monetary or any other relief from the respondents consequent to quashing of the impugned adverse remarks. 21. For the reasons stated above, the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The communication dated 11.1.1999 issued by the respondents recording the adverse remarks in the confidential record of the petitioner is hereby quashed. iii) No order as to costs.