JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel for the High Court and learned counsel for the State. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is against refusal of the Patna High Court on its administrative side to expunge the entries in column nos. 2, 5 and 9 of his A.C.R. for the year ending 31st March, 2008. He has also represented for grant of second A.C.P. and the representation for the same is said to be still pendipg. 3. The petitioner was holding the post of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia at the time when A.C.R. in question was recorded by the District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur. The heading of column no . 2 is "whether the Officer is industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases" and the entry is-Average, not interested in disposal of old cases. The heading of column no. 5 is "whether the Officer has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality during the period under report" and the entry is-Doubtful, as it appears from his judgments and orders & whispering. The heading of column no. 9 is "Final assessment" and the entry is-Not satisfactory. 4. On behalf of the petitioner, several judgments were cited to support the submission that the entries in confidential remarks are to be used for the purpose of improving the human resources and not with a view to finding fault with the employees. It was further submitted that the entries in the concerned columns are based on subjective and not on verified materials and lastly, it was submitted that the representation for expunging the remarks in question has been rejected by the High Court on its administrative side by the impugned order dated 12.2.2009 contained in Annexure-12 and that does not show that the representation was considered on merits because no reasons have been assigned for rejecting the representation. 5. For any Organisation, the appraisal of human resources at regular interval is only to ensure that the concerned employees or officials could know their weak points as well as strong points and may improve. It also helps the Organization to know its employee through their immediate superiors reports. The entries are confidential in nature and only when there is something adverse, then it is communicated to the concerned officials so that he may improve or represent and pray for expunging the same. 6. It also helps the Organization to know its employee through their immediate superiors reports. The entries are confidential in nature and only when there is something adverse, then it is communicated to the concerned officials so that he may improve or represent and pray for expunging the same. 6. Before recording the A.C.R. in question, the District and Sessions Judge has full opportunity to observe the working of the petitioner, hear about his general reputation of that station and to go through his judgments and orders. The observations and findings of the Reporting Officer cannot be doubted and brushed aside easily unless there be convincing materials to hold otherwise. 7. In the present case, the petitioner has annexed a list of 49 old cases to show that from July, 2007 to May, 2008, he has disposed of those old cases and therefore it should be held that the observation that he was not interested in disposal of old cases is factually incorrect. We have gone through the list which does not fally correspond to the period under report but even that list shows that the majority of cases were closed only on account of accused having absconded. The Reporting Officer obviously did not mean the disposal of old case in that manner. Further such figures do not lead to any positive conclusion unless all the relevant figures such as the number of old pending cases and their stages are known to the court. Hence it is not possible to hold that entry in column no. 2 stands rebutted on the basis of the materials on record. 8. In respect of entry in column no. 5 relating to reputation for honesty and impartiality, the heading itself speaks of maintenance of reputation which is a nebulous and subjective concept required to be indicated by an experienced Judicial Officer like District and Sessions Judge. The Reporting Officer had the opportunity to go through the judgments and orders and also hear the whisperings of concerned persons in respect of conduct and reputation of the Officer. In the context of the heading, he has rightly mentioned the sources on the basis whereof he has recorded the comments against column no. 5. Such action cannot be faulted. Further, we do not find any material to hold that the final assessment against column no. 9 suffers from any mistake or non-application of mind. 9. In the context of the heading, he has rightly mentioned the sources on the basis whereof he has recorded the comments against column no. 5. Such action cannot be faulted. Further, we do not find any material to hold that the final assessment against column no. 9 suffers from any mistake or non-application of mind. 9. So far as the rules of natural justice are concerned, when the High Court on its administrative side considered the representation and rejected the same, it was on the basis of facts mentioned in the representation as well as the remarks of the Reporting Officer against which the representation had been filed. Such situation in respect of an administrative matter like representation against adverse remarks cannot be equated with that of judicial function which requires reasoned orders. At a stage, when the Reporting Authority has already recorded his opinion, the superior authority has only to apply its mind to the facts and the representation and there can be no doubt that the representation was considered and then rejected. In the facts of the case, such rejection cannot be held to be in violation of principle of natural justice. 10. In the final result, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. 11. So far as the representation of the petitioner for grant of 2nd A.C.P. is concerned, it is observed that the High Court on its administrative side should consider the same expeditiously and in accordance with law at an early date preferably within three months.