Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.— 1. This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ,order,rule or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 09.08.2010 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition) by which the adverse entry awarded by respondents no.6/8to the petitioner has been confirmed and also the entry awarded to the petitioner by respondent No. 6/8 on 15.09.2009 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition).The petitioner further sought the quashing of the entry awarded by respondent No.5/7 as satisfactory for the period 01.07.2008 to 31.03 2009 vide order dated 02.11.2009.(Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 2. We have heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 3. The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer in Irrigation Department, Government of U.P. And was posted at relevant time in Sub Division-4, Belan Canal Division, Allahabad. An adverse entry has been recorded for the period in between 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009 by Reporting Officer, respondents no.6/8 on 15.10.2009, which is as follows:- Part-2 Remark to Head of Department, Karyalayabad etc. From 01.04.2008 to 22.09.2008 Shri Ajay Pratap Srivastava, Assistant Engineer is not faithful towards his duties. He does not perform the works with required interest and responsibility and try to escape from his responsibilities/duties. He showed negligence towards duties, disobeyed the orders of higher officers publicly. In review meeting dated 06.09.2008, convened by Chief Engineer (Sone), he attempted to behave indecently and also to create obstruction. In the meeting, it has also been mentioned by him that he is getting proposals of appointment from many departments/companies, and he is not willing to serve with the irrigation department. Thus, his behaviour and conduct has not been remained good. Category: Bad Sd/15.10.09 Executive Engineer Belan Calan Region Allahabad 4. This entry was recorded by the Executive Engineer respondent No.6/8, for the period 1.4.2008 to 22.9.2008. 5. The Superintending Engineer posted in Irrigation Division at Allahabad from 1.4.2008 to 30.6.2008 could not give any opinion because he had retired. For the period from 1.7.2008 to 31.3.2009, the Superintending Engineer respondent No.5/7 assessed the work of the petitioner as good and categorized him as a 'good' on 2.11.2009 as evident from the following remark :- Period: From 01.07.08 to 31.03.09 During aforesaid period, work and behaviour has been good. Category: Good. Sd/02.11.09 Superintending Engineer Irrigation Work Division Allahabad. 6. For the period from 1.7.2008 to 31.3.2009, the Superintending Engineer respondent No.5/7 assessed the work of the petitioner as good and categorized him as a 'good' on 2.11.2009 as evident from the following remark :- Period: From 01.07.08 to 31.03.09 During aforesaid period, work and behaviour has been good. Category: Good. Sd/02.11.09 Superintending Engineer Irrigation Work Division Allahabad. 6. For the period from 1.2.2009 to 31.3.2009, Sri Saket Kumar, the then Chief Engineer(Sone), Varanasi did not record his opinion about the petitioner's work on account of short period. The other the than Chief Engineers namly Sri V.P.Sinha(1.04.2008 to 06.06.2008),Sri K.D.Shukla (07.06.2008 to 31.1.2009) did not gave their opinion as they had been retired. Consequently the entry recorded against the petitioner stand final. 7. This adverse entry was communicated to the petitioner, vide letter dated 27.1.2010 asking for his explanation, if any, against the adverse remark. The petitioner, in response to it, submitted his representation on 29.1.2010, which is marked as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition. On 9.8.2010, the Chief Engineer, (East) respondent no.-3 rejected the representation presented by the petitioner, vide his office memo filed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order of the Chief Engineer-respondent no. 3 and adverse remark recorded by the Executive Engineer as Reporting Officer and improving the grade by Superintending Engineer, the petitioner challenged the same in the present writ petition and prays for quashing the same by issuing a writ, order, rule or direction in the nature of certiorari. After due consideration on the representation of Shri Ajay Pratap Srivastava, Assistant Engineer and the report made available by Shri R.P.Yadav, Executive Engineer (Reporting Officer), it has been found that the facts submitted by Shri Srivastava, Assistant Engineer bear no base/ground and have no force, consequently the adverse remark was confirmed which has been awarded by the Reporting Officer in Annual Confidential Report/Annual Character Role of Shri Ajay Pratap Srivastava, Assistant Engineer for the year 2008-09 (Period : from 01.04.2008 to 22.09.2008). 9. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents alleging that the Government Order dated 30.4.1991 has been supercided by another Government Order dated 21.2.2005 annexed as Annexure No. C.A.-2 to the counter affidavit. 9. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents alleging that the Government Order dated 30.4.1991 has been supercided by another Government Order dated 21.2.2005 annexed as Annexure No. C.A.-2 to the counter affidavit. It is further pointed out that in the Government Order dated 21.2.2005, it has been categorically mentioned that annual confidential entry recorded by an authority after fixed schedule (time table), would not be invalid. Some other materials against the petitioner have also been filed along with the counter affidavit as documentary evidence on the basis of which the adverse remark against the petitioner had been recorded. 10. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed from the side of the petitioner denying the allegations made in the counter affidavit and reiterating the allegations made in the writ petition. Along with the rejoinder affidavit, a notice issued to the petitioner on 6.9.2008 has been filed as Annexure No. R.A.- 4 to the rejoinder affidavit. Some other documents have also been filed to this rejoinder affidavit to show that the superintending Engineer also asked for explanation on several occasions from the Executive Engineer. 11. The petitioner challenged the impugned entries and order of Chief Engineer on the following grounds. 1.that the entries have not been recorded in accordance with the time schedule provided by notifications dated 30.4.1991 and 4.12.1993, copies of which have been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition 2.that during the tenure of posting at the relevant time, i.e., in between 1.4.2008 to 22.9.2008, the petitioner was unable to work in accordance with the wishes of respondent nos. 7 and 8 and was further unable to accede to their demands though the petitioner has performed all the works and duties assigned to him from time to time as per specification upto their satisfaction 3. that the impugned order dated 9.8.2010 is a non-speaking order and no reasons have been assigned to accept the entry recorded by the respondent nos. 6 / 8. The purpose of recording annual confidential report has been discussed by the Supreme Court of India in its judgment reported in State Bank of India Vs. Kashi Nath Kher. (1996) 8 SCC 762 . 6 / 8. The purpose of recording annual confidential report has been discussed by the Supreme Court of India in its judgment reported in State Bank of India Vs. Kashi Nath Kher. (1996) 8 SCC 762 . The relevant portion of report in para-15 at page 771 is as follows:- "(i)to give an opportunity to the officer to remove inefficiency and to inculcate discipline; (ii)it seeks to serve improvement of quality and excellence and efficiency of public service. The officers while writing confidential reports should show objectivity, impartiality and fair assessment without any prejudice whatever with the highest sense of responsibility to inclucate in the officer devotion to duty, honesty and integrity so as to improve excellence of the individual officers. In State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shankar Mishra (1997) 4 SCC 7 wherein the Apex Court held at page 13 para 7 the object of recording annual confidential remark. " The object of writing the confidential reports and making entries in the character rolls is to give an opportunity to a public servant to improve excellence. Article 51-A(j) of the Constitution of India enjoins upon every citizen the primary duty to constantly endeavour to prove excellence, individually and collectively, as a member of the group. Given an opportunity, the individual employee strives to improve excellence and thereby efficiency of administration would be augmented. The officer entrusted with the duty to write confidential reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately while giving, as accurately as possible, the statement of facts on an overall assessment of the performance of the subordinate officer. It should be founded upon facts or circumstances. Though sometimes, it may not be part of the record, but the conduct, reputation and character acquire public knowledge or notoriety and may be within his knowledge. Before forming an opinion to be adverse, the reporting officers writing confidential reports should share the information which is not a part of the record with the officer concerned, have the information confronted by the officer and then make it part of the record. This amounts to an opportunity given to the erring/corrupt officer to correct the errors of the judgment, conduct, behavior, integrity or conduct/corrupt proclivity. This amounts to an opportunity given to the erring/corrupt officer to correct the errors of the judgment, conduct, behavior, integrity or conduct/corrupt proclivity. If, despite giving such an opportunity, the officer fails to perform the duty, correct his conduct or improve himself, the same may be recorded in the confidential reports and a copy thereof supplied to the affected officer so that he will have an opportunity to know the remarks made against him. If he feels aggrieved, it would be open to him to have it corrected by appropriate representation to the higher authorities or any appropriate judicial forum for redressal. Thereby, honesty, integrity, good conduct and efficiency get improved in the performance of public duties and standard of excellence in services constantly rises to higher levels and it becomes a successful tool to manage the services with officers of integrity, honesty, efficiency and devotion." In the light of decisions mentioned above this writ petition is going to be disposed off. Point No. 1 The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entry should be recorded by the Reporting Officer by 31st of July, the Reviewing Officer may review the opinion of Reporting Officer by 31 of August and the Accepting Authority may decide the same by 31st of September of each year. Therefore, the entry recorded was beyond the time schedule and the same should be ignored. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to non recording of the entries within the time schedule fixed by the Government Order, the adverse entry cannot be read against the petitioner as mentioned in the Government Order dated 30.2.1991. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that subsequent Government Orders of 1993 and 1995 contained this provision that the finalization of the entry beyond time schedule could not make the entry itself ineffective. Virtually paragraph 1(a) of Government Order dated 30.4.1991 has been withdrawn in the subsequent Government Order. The same was reiterated in the Government Order of date 21.02.2005 annexed with the counter affidavit as annexure C.A.-2. Learned Standing Counsel relying upon the aforesaid Government Orders submits that mere delay in recording the entry itself could not be sufficient to ignore the same, however, at the most, it can be treated a misconduct of the officer who fails to finalize the entry in the scheduled time given in the Government order. Learned Standing Counsel relying upon the aforesaid Government Orders submits that mere delay in recording the entry itself could not be sufficient to ignore the same, however, at the most, it can be treated a misconduct of the officer who fails to finalize the entry in the scheduled time given in the Government order. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that this is not a ground for rejecting the entry recorded against the petitioner. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel. In judicial review, the Court is not concerned with the merits or correctness of the decision, but with the manner in which the decision is taken or order is made. A court of law is not exercising appellate power and it cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of authority deciding the matter. The areas where judicial power can operate are limited to keep the executive and legislative within the scheme of division of power depends upon facts and circumstances of each and every case. Unless the order passed by authority is unlawful or unconstitutional power of judicial review cannot be exercised. So long administrative decision is bonafide and within the limits of the authority, no interference is called for. The power of judicial review is supervisory in nature. Unless the restrictions are observed the court under the guise of providing abuse of power by authority, will itself guilty of usurping power. In view of the above, the Government Order of 2005 annexed as Annexure No. C.A. 2 to the counter affidavit makes it crystal clear that the entries recorded after a schedule time could not be termed as irregular, illegal or time barred. Therefore, we do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Point No. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the ill will in the heart of the respondent, which has come in the form of adverse remark. Learned counsel tried to emphasize that the petitioner could not fulfill the desires and demands of the respondent nos. 7 and 8 though he performed his work with all specifications and there is no complaint either of public or any officer. Learned counsel tried to emphasize that the petitioner could not fulfill the desires and demands of the respondent nos. 7 and 8 though he performed his work with all specifications and there is no complaint either of public or any officer. Learned Standing Counsel submits that there are sufficient material in the form of documentary evidence on record to show that the petitioner is an indisciplined employee and behaves with seniors in such a way which constitutes a severe misconduct. It is also pointed out that the document filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition clearly shows that he does not believe in obeying the command of superior officers and while submitting the explanation he uses the language, which in a normal course, a Government Employee would not use. Our attention has been drawn towards Annexure Nos. 8 and 9 which are show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer, R.P. Yadav, on 23.08..2008 and its reply by the petitioner on 30.8.2008. Malice or ill will is required to be proved like any other fact. Mere allegations or assertions are not sufficient. This must be supported by facts and court after scanning the facts must come to its own conclusion { (2000) 5 SCC 630 Prbodh Sagar Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Others}. In the case in hand, the material available on record clearly indicates that the present petitioner was not an obedient employee and he behaves with the superiors in such a way which amounts to disobedience of the instructions and directions issued by the superiors. While making correspondence with the superiors, the petitioner uses unwarranted language as is evident from Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition. Annexure 9 to the writ petition is the reply of the petitioner against the notice issued to the petitioner for disobedience. While going through the contents of Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition, it emerged out that in stead of giving specific reply of notice, the petitioner levels charges against the superior and also put question mark on the working on the Executive Engineer. He also tries to mislead the authorities by not giving specific replies of the specific incident mentioned in the notice. The petitioner while replying the notice pertaining to incident of 2008 started its reply from an earlier incident which is said to have been occurred, according to him, in 2007. He also tries to mislead the authorities by not giving specific replies of the specific incident mentioned in the notice. The petitioner while replying the notice pertaining to incident of 2008 started its reply from an earlier incident which is said to have been occurred, according to him, in 2007. No evidence except the replies have been brought to establish the malice and ill will of respondents No. 6/8 or of respondent No.3 which we found insufficent to prove malice or ill will in recording entry or in passing the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner by the respondents. After considering the material available on record, we are of the firm view that the petitioner failed to prove the malice or ill-will of the respondents towards the petitioner. Therefore, we do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this score. Point no. 3 Relying upon a Judgment reported in (1979) 2 SCC 368 , Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Punjab and others, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even in the administrative matters reasons for passing order is required i.e. the administrative orders must be speaking orders. On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel submits that accepting the entry recorded by the Executive Engineer is an administrative act of the authorities and the role of judicial scrutiny in such type of matters is very limited. In this regard, Annexure No. 7 is very material to be gone into. The respondent no. 3, while giving his opinion and accepting the opinion given by respondent nos. 6/8 for the period in between 1.4.2008 to 22.9.2008, mentioned in his order that after due consideration the representation was found baseless and without any force. We have considered the arguments of both the sides and find that while rejecting the representation of the petitioner by the respondent no.3, it has been clearly mentioned that he considered the representation and found it baseless and without force. In this regard, it is contended that the report of the Reporting Officer was called for from him in the light of the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed the copy of the said report submitted by the Executing Engineer. However, the same has been placed on record from the side of the respondents as Annexure No. C.A.-4 to the counter affidavit. The petitioner has not filed the copy of the said report submitted by the Executing Engineer. However, the same has been placed on record from the side of the respondents as Annexure No. C.A.-4 to the counter affidavit. Therefore, it cannot be said that while accepting the entry recorded by the Executive Engineer, the Chief Engineer has not considered the materials available before him or he has acted arbitrarily or without application of mind. It is well settled that administrative actions should not be normally interfered unless they have ill will or mala fides in passing the same or they have been in utter violations of principles of natural justice or violative of any provision of the Statute or of Constitution of India. The law cited from the side of the petitioner is not extending any help to the petitioner because the same has been in context of interpretation of rule which has certain provision using therein the word 'reasons'. However, so far as recording of entries is concerned, the relevant Government Order and rule does not require to pass a reasoned order while accepting the opinion of the Reporting Officer. The Reviewing Officer has not given any reasons upgrading the category of the petitioner but after decision of the Accepting Authority, the decision of Accepting Authority will prevail. We, therefore, find that the said writ petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, no order as to costs. _____________