JUDGMENT : D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. 1. The captive writ petition assails the adverse entries against the petitioner’s CCR for the years 2010 and 2011 and illegal rejection of representation filed by the petitioner. FACTS 2. The factual matrix leading to this writ petition is that the petitioner entered into service and joined as Munsif on 2.1.1985. She got promoted to different cadres at different times such as to OJS Class-I (Junior), OJS Class-I, Chief Judicial Magistrate and then on 8.5.2009 she was promoted to the cadre of Orissa Superior Judicial Service and posted as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jajpur. On 9.4.2010 she was absorbed as regular District Judge after facing the interview. Subsequently after completion of successful probation she was confirmed and substantially appointed in the cadre of District and Sessions Judge with effect from 8.4.2012 in terms of Rule 33 (5) of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (hereinafter called “the Rules, 2007”). 3. Be it stated that on 10.2.2014 as the luck of the petitioner would have it, she received letter showing her Annual Character Roll as ‘Poor’ for the years 2010 and 2011. She made representation vide Annexure-2 but that was rejected being not considered. However, the petitioner was granted Selection Grade scale on 24.4.2015 and got Supertime scale on 29.6.2016 under Rules, 2007. Since she has been promoted from time to time and reached Super Time scale, any adverse entry in the CCR for the years 2010 and 2011 would cause a problem in the career of the petitioner in future for which the writ petition is filed to quash such entry in the CCR and the order of rejection of representation. SUBMISSION 4. Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been promoted time to time after entry into judicial service and finally she has already got the Supertime scale as per Rule 5 of the Rules, 2007. The communication of the adverse entry for 2010 and 2011 was made after four years and 3 years respectively on 10.2.2014 which are based on no material. According to him, the delayed communication is itself bad in law which is liable to be quashed. The communication of the adverse entry for 2010 and 2011 was made after four years and 3 years respectively on 10.2.2014 which are based on no material. According to him, the delayed communication is itself bad in law which is liable to be quashed. He relied on the decisions in (2013) 9 SCC 566 ; Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India and others, (2010) 8 SCC 155 ; Kazia Mohammed Muzzammil v. State of Karnataka and another, (2012) 6 SCC 357 ; Registrar General, High Court of Patna v. Pandey Gajendra Prasad and others and AIR 1989 SC 2218 ; Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa and another. 5. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate further submits that entries have no value when promotion and service benefits have been confirmed notwithstanding such entries. But the career throughout having been maintained with good service record, such late rating on performance should be quashed. In 2010 itself the petitioner has appeared in the interview for the post of District Judge and became successful and in the years 2010 and 2011 she has served as Additional District Judge, Jajpur and till 2012 she completed the probation and was regularized as District Judge. According to him, the entries must be objective and should be written being supported by reasons. He relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1999 SC 3273 ; P.K. Shastri v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others and 2001 (2) SCC 305 ; Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and others. 6. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the representation was made by the petitioner but it was rejected without any reasons. According to him, as per the decision reported in (2013) 9 SCC 566 (supra), the disposal of the representation should be done in a fair manner for which the rejection of the representation also suffers from infirmity. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there are no contemporaneous and simultaneous communications of any notice or intimation for the substantive remarks ultimately made in the CCR of the petitioner. On the other hand, since there being no such shortcomings got reflected in the CCRs, same is also bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there are no contemporaneous and simultaneous communications of any notice or intimation for the substantive remarks ultimately made in the CCR of the petitioner. On the other hand, since there being no such shortcomings got reflected in the CCRs, same is also bad in law. In this regard, he relied upon the decision reported in 1978(1) SLR 829;Madan Mohan Khatua v. State of Orissa & others and also in AIR 1997 SC 3671 ;State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra and another. Since the petitioner has been already promoted basing on merit-cum-seniority under Rules, 2007, the impugned adverse entry should be expunged for these two years. 7. Mr. K.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted without disputing the facts that the writ petition is not maintainable as in the instant case the adverse entry has been communicated to the petitioner because of the shortcomings in the outturn in the civil side. The adverse entry was intimated in accordance with the Rules after the adverse entry was confirmed by the Full Court. According to him, the learned Administrative Judge having endorsed such adverse entry, it was placed before the Full Court dated 13.1.2014 and then the decision of the Full Court was intimated to the petitioner. Moreover, judicial review of the CCR/ACR or cases expunging this adverse remark is very limited and the writ Court can interfere only in exceptional circumstances for compelling reasons. If the Court comes to the conclusion that there was no occasion for the authority to record adverse entries, then same may be interfered but not otherwise. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that the Court’s power of judicial review may be invoked sparingly and under compelling circumstances. Since in the instant case, the petitioner has been already promoted to the post of Super Time, there is no cause of action to file the writ petition to expunge adverse entry in the CCR for the years 2010 and 2011. When there is no cause of action, the writ petition is also not maintainable. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that when there is no sufficient outturn in the civil side, she was intimated vide Court’s letter No.7611 dated 27.9.2010 and No.5434 dated 12.7.2012 for which her claim that she has got high standard in service is not correct. When there is no cause of action, the writ petition is also not maintainable. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that when there is no sufficient outturn in the civil side, she was intimated vide Court’s letter No.7611 dated 27.9.2010 and No.5434 dated 12.7.2012 for which her claim that she has got high standard in service is not correct. It is further submitted on behalf of the opposite party that since the promotion of the petitioner was considered by the time of CCR up to 2009 and CCRs of 2010 and 2011 were not available at that time, the promotion was given to the petitioner in 2011. So, the entries in the CCRs of the petitioner made in 2010 and 2011 have no nexus with her promotion. Hence, it is submitted to dismiss the writ petition. 9. The main point for consideration: (i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for expunction of the adverse entries in the CCRs for the years 2010 and 2011? DISCUSSION 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as member of the OJS on 2.1.1985 and gradually got promoted without any break to the cadre of District Judge. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner was also confirmed as regular District Judge and has got Selection Grade and Supertime scale in spite of the adverse entry made in the C.C.R. for the years 2010 and 2011. It is not in dispute that the adverse entry was communicated on 18.3.2015. 11. Since the adverse C.C.R. is the issue, it is relevant to go through the G.R.C.O. (Civil) where the Guidelines have been given about the entry in the C.C.R. of the Judicial Officers. “NOTES ON PROCEDURE FOR RECORDING ANNUAL CONFIDENTIAL CHARACTER ROLL OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS NOTE 1. (a) Part-l of the form is to be filled up by the officers reported upon. (b) Part-ll of the form is to be filled up by the Chief Judicial Magistrates. (c) Part – III of the form is to be filled up by Hon’ble the Chief Justice and the Registrars in case of officers working in the Registry of the High Court, Government and head of institution in case of officers on deputation to them. If sub-part (a) of this part is filled up by Hon'ble Chief Justice the sub-part (b) and (c) should not be filled up by any other Authority. If sub-part (a) of this part is filled up by Hon'ble Chief Justice the sub-part (b) and (c) should not be filled up by any other Authority. Similarly, if sub-part (b) of this part is filled up by Hon'ble Chief Justice the sub-part (c) should not be filled up by any other authority. (d) The part-IV of the form is to be filled up by the Judge-in-charge of the district in case of officers belonging to the cadre of O.S.J.S (Sr. Br.) except the Registrars of the High Court by the District Judges in case of officers below the cadre of O.S.J.S. (Sr. Br.) officers of the rank of O.S.J.S. (Sr.Br.) competent to write C.C.Rs. on deputation to the Government in case of officers discharging judicial work. (e) Part-V of the form is to be filled up by the Judge-in– charge of the district in case of officers other than those belonging to the cadre of O.S.J.S ( Sr. Branch). (f) Part-VI of the form is to be filled up by the standing Committee in case of officers other than the officers in the cadre of O.S.J.S. (Sr.-Branch) and by the Full Court in case of officers in the cadre of O.S.J.S ( Sr. Branch). 2. Officers working on deputation to the Government and other institutions shall fill up the form is Part I and forward the same to their next Higher Authority. Such authority shall thereupon give his remarks in Part-III and send the same to the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court who shall place the same before the Judge-in-charge, of the district for further necessary action as required in Part-VI of the form. 3. All officers are required to bestow care and attention in filling up the respective portions of the form by them. xxxx xx xx 5. (a) The Reporting Authority/District Judge under whom a judicial officer is working for more than 4 months must record the C.C.R. of the officer. (b) The District Judge/Government should complete all formalities and send the C.C.Rs. of the officer working under his jurisdiction to the High Court on or before 31st January of the following year. (c) The Registrar (Administration) shall place the relevant C.C.Rs. (b) The District Judge/Government should complete all formalities and send the C.C.Rs. of the officer working under his jurisdiction to the High Court on or before 31st January of the following year. (c) The Registrar (Administration) shall place the relevant C.C.Rs. before the Judge-in-charge of the District by the end of February and before the Hon'ble Chief Justice with the remarks of Hon'ble Judge-in-charge by 31st March and by order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice before the Standing Committee and the Full Court by 30th April every year.]” The aforesaid provision in G.R.C.O. clearly shows that the C.C.R. of every Officer must be submitted by 31st January of next year for the previous year with self appraisal report and in the cadre of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service, the remark of the Administrative Judge is to be obtained by the end of February and the C.C.R. must be placed before the Standing Committee and the Full Court by order of the Chief Justice by 30th April every year. This shows that the procedure for adverse entry if any can only be known to the officer by the end of next year so that he or she can improve the standard and show better performance in the next year. 12. It is reported in (2007) 9 SCC 436 ; S.T. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka and another, where Their Lordships have observed at para-40 in the following manner: “40.The confidential report is an important document as it provides the basic and vital inputs for assessing the performance of an officer and further achievements in his career. This Court has held that the performance appraisal through C.Rs. should be used as a tool for human resource development and are not to be used as a fault finding process but a developmental one. Except for the impugned adverse remarks for a short period of about 150 days, the performance of the appellant has been consistently of high quality with various achievements and prestigious postings and meritorious awards from the President of India. We have already seen that the appellant has been graded as "very good", "excellent" and "outstanding" throughout his career. It is difficult to appreciate as to how it could become adverse during the period of 150 days for which the adverse remarks were made. We have already seen that the appellant has been graded as "very good", "excellent" and "outstanding" throughout his career. It is difficult to appreciate as to how it could become adverse during the period of 150 days for which the adverse remarks were made. Furthermore, despite such adverse remarks, the Government of Karnataka, considering his merit and ability and outstanding qualities, has already promoted the appellant as the Inspector General of Police”. 13. With due regard to the said decision, it appears that confidential report is an important document to assess the performance of the employee and it should be maintained carefully. 14. In the same decision Baidyanath Mahapatra (supra) Their Lordships also observed at para-5 in the following manner: “5. No exception can be taken to the Government's opinion in retiring the appellant prematurely on the basis of the aforesaid recommendation of the Review Committee as it clearly indicated that the appellant's retention in service was not in public interest. The purpose of the Rule conferring power on the Government to retire Government servants prematurely is to energise its machinery by "chopping of the dead-wood" as held by this Court in Union of India v. J.N. Sinha, (1971) 1 SCR 791 : AIR 1971 SC 40 ). The question which falls for consideration is whether the Review Committee was justified in making its recommendations on the basis of adverse entries awarded to the appellant in remote past especially when the appellant had been promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer in 1976 and he had further been permitted to cross Efficiency Bar in 1979. The adverse entries relating to the years 1969-70, 1970-71, 1972-73 and 1975-76, had lost all significance, because in spite of those entries the appellant was considered to be an intelligent and efficient officer and in that view he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. If those entries did not reflect deficiency in appellant's work and conduct for the purpose of promotion, it is difficult to comprehend as to how those adverse entries could be pressed into service for retiring him prematurely. When a Government servant is promoted to a higher post on the basis of merit and selection, adverse entries if any contained in his service record lose their significance and those remain on record as part of past history. When a Government servant is promoted to a higher post on the basis of merit and selection, adverse entries if any contained in his service record lose their significance and those remain on record as part of past history. It would be unjust to curtail the service career of Government servant on the basis of those entries in the absence of any significant fall in his performance after his promotion.” 15. With due regard to the aforesaid decision, it appears that any adverse entry communicated later to the promotion already made has no significance and that should be ignored. 16. It is reported in AIR 1989 SC 2218 ; Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa and another where Their Lordships observed at para-6: “6. The adverse entries for the years 1969-70, 1970-71, 1972-73 and 1975-76 were communicated in a lot to the appellant in 1978, although under the instructions issued by the State Government the adverse entries must be communicated by December of each year. The purpose of communicating adverse entries to the Government servant is to inform him regarding his deficiency in work and conduct and to afford him an opportunity to make, amend, and improvement in his work and further if the entries are not justified the communication affords him an opportunity to make representation. If the adverse remarks awarded to a Government servant are communicated to him after several years, the object of communicating entries is defeated. It is therefore imperative that the adverse entries awarded to a Government servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period to afford him opportunity to improve his work and conduct and also to make representation in the event of the entry being unjustified. In the instant case, adverse entries relating to a number of years were communicated to the appellant in one lot under a letter dated 27.2.1978 contrary to the instructions issued by the State Government as contained in Circular No. 29 dated 19.2.1953. Belated communication of the entries resulted into denial of reasonable opportunity to the appellant to improve his performance. Further since adverse remarks for several years were communicated with inordinate delay it was impossible for the appellant to make an effective representation against the same. xxx xxx xxx” 17. Belated communication of the entries resulted into denial of reasonable opportunity to the appellant to improve his performance. Further since adverse remarks for several years were communicated with inordinate delay it was impossible for the appellant to make an effective representation against the same. xxx xxx xxx” 17. With due regard to the said decision, it appears that the object of communicating adverse entries should be achieved if the communication is made within reasonable period and belated communication of entries resulted into denial of reasonable opportunity to improve his performance. 18. It is reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 ;Dev Dutt v. Union of India & others, where Their Lordships observed at paragraphs-17, 18, 36 and 37 in the following manner: “17. In our opinion, every entry in the A.C.R. of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair, average, good or very good entry. This is because non-communication of such an entry may adversely affect the employee in two ways : (1) had the entry been communicated to him he would know about the assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which would enable him to improve his work in future (2) He would have an opportunity of making a representation against the entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its upgradation. Hence, non-communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India; (1978)1 SCC 248 that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution. 18. Thus it is not only when there is a bench mark but in all cases that an entry (whether it is poor, fair, average, good or very good) must be communicated to a public servant, otherwise there is violation of the principle of fairness, which is the soul of natural justice. Even an outstanding entry should be communicated since that would boost the morale of the employee and make him work harder. xxx xxx xxx 36. Even an outstanding entry should be communicated since that would boost the morale of the employee and make him work harder. xxx xxx xxx 36. In the present case, we are developing the principles of natural justice by holding that fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good) in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State service (except the military), must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its upgradation. This in our opinion is the correct legal position even though there may be no Rule/G.O. requiring communication of the entry, or even if there is a Rule/G.O. prohibiting it, because the principle of non-arbitrariness in State action as envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution in our opinion requires such communication. Article 14 will override all rules or government orders. 37. We further hold that when the entry is communicated to him the public servant should have a right to make a representation against the entry to the authority concerned, and the authority concerned must decide the representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable period. We also hold that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation will be summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. All this would be conducive to fairness and transparency in public administration, and would result in fairness to public servants. The State must be a model employer, and must act fairly towards its employees. Only then would good governance be possible.” 19. With due regard to the aforesaid observation, the Hon’ble Apex Court emphatically direct that every entry in the ACR must be communicated within reasonable time so that the Officer concerned would know about the assessment of his work and conduct by superiors. By that means the Officer has got opportunity of making representation for communication of the ACR within time and awarding the chance of making representation are all factors to show the transparency of administration and fairplay. If the system would not work like this, there would be violation of natural justice of the concerned officer as per Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 20. If the system would not work like this, there would be violation of natural justice of the concerned officer as per Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 20. The aforesaid decision has been also followed in (2013) 9 SCC 566 ; Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India and others and in the decision reported in 2009 (16) SCC 146 ; Abhijit Ghose Dastidar v. Union of India and others. 21. Now adverting to the case of the petitioner, it appears that for the years 2010 and 2011 the learned Administrative Judge has not found any integrity of the Officer doubtful but has reported the overall rate ‘Poor’. Moreover, the contents of CCR contradict the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party inasmuch as there is no observation in the impugned CCR for both years that she has got ‘Poor’ disposal of the cases at the civil side but some other ground she has been rated ‘Poor’. It is true that the observation of the learned Administrative Judge cannot be re-appreciated by the Court even in judicial side but due to the inconsistency between the pleading and the material of the opposite party, the contents of the ACR lacks sufficient material to come to such conclusion as observed by the learned Administrative Judge. Leaving aside this aspect, it appears that both the CCRs do not disclose the date on which ACRs of both the years were endorsed by the learned Administrative Judge and it is also not found when those CCRs were received in the Registry. But it is revealed from the counter that the CCRs of the petitioner were put up before the Full Court on 13.1.2014. Thus, it is assumed that the ACRs for 2010 and 2011 have been received in 2014 which is long after four years and three years of the entry in the ACR. On the other hand the adverse entries were only communicated after 13.1.2014 that means long after one year of the relevant year entry. At any rate, the undated ACR and non-communicated ACR within reasonable time lose significance as per the decision in Devi Dutt (supra) and other decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated above. 22. On the other hand the adverse entries were only communicated after 13.1.2014 that means long after one year of the relevant year entry. At any rate, the undated ACR and non-communicated ACR within reasonable time lose significance as per the decision in Devi Dutt (supra) and other decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated above. 22. It is admitted by opposite party in para-16 of the counter that CCRs for the years 2010 and 2011 were not taken into consideration where promotion of the petitioner was held to the rank of Supertime District Judge. Even if such adverse entry has not been utilized to stall the promotion but timely communication about same could have given the petitioner ample opportunity of meeting the lapses as observed in the ACR. 23. Even if adverse entries have not been reflected in the promotion but keeping such adverse entry in the career of the Officer would put a stigma which may be utilized in future while reviewing the whole career of the petitioner to continue in service. It is trite in law that the whole career of the Officer should be verified while his service is reviewed after the age of 50, 55 and 58 years in accordance with the Rules, 2007. So, the adverse entries for these two years have got cause of action to file the writ petition. That apart, the Officer has maintained the career throughout without any adverse entry like ‘poor’ and when the Officer has been promoted time to time and has no career with ‘poor’ entry except these impugned entries and she has no doubtful integrity even in 2010 and 2011, such entries have no significance. 24. In terms of the above discussion, we are of the view that the entry ‘poor’ in 2010 and 2011 as communicated having no significance should be expunged. Point is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION 25. In the writ petition, it has been prayed to quash the communication of the adverse entry for the years 2010 and 2011 vide Annexure-1 and order of rejection of the representation made by the petitioner and also prayer for upgrading the CCR of petitioner as outstanding for the year 2010 and 2011. 26. In view of the aforesaid observation that the entry in the ACR 2010 and 2011 are liable to be expunged, the Court do so. 26. In view of the aforesaid observation that the entry in the ACR 2010 and 2011 are liable to be expunged, the Court do so. Accordingly, we hereby direct the intimation vide Annexure-1 that the Character Roll of the petitioner in 2010 and 2011 as ‘Poor’ is also quashed. 27. Moreover, Annexure-3 shows that the Special Officer (Administration)-opposite party has intimated the petitioner in the following manner:- “ORISSA HIGH COURT:CUTTACK 2671 XXV-12/2011 From Shri A.K. Chandan, Special Officer (Administration) To Smt. Suchismita Mishra, Registrar, Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar. Cuttack Dated the 18th March, 2015 Sub:-Expunction of adverse remarks in C.C.R. for the year, 2010 & 2011 Madam, With reference to your confidential letter No.25 dated 12.03.2014 on the above subject, I am directed to say that, the Court after careful consideration of your representation are pleased to observe that no further consideration is called for. This is four favour of your information. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Special Officer (Admn.)” 28. The aforesaid Annexure-3 only shows that her representation for expunction of adverse remarks in the CCR for the years 2010 and 2011 has been rejected and communicated in 2015. No reason has been assigned for that. As observed in the decision Dev Dutt v. Union of India and others (supra) the rejection of the representation should be preceded with reasons. Since there is no reason assigned, such Annexure-3 is also liable to be quashed. 29. There is no Rule under Rules, 2007 or the Rule framed above to show what would be the remark if no adverse remark is communicated within two years from the last date of the year to which the CCR relates. So, in such circumstances, the circular of the State Government in G.A. Department dated 23.11.1987 may be pressed into service. According to Clause 21 of such circular if no remarks are received within two years from the last date of the year to which the C.C.R. relates, it would be presumed “no remarks”, and a note of “no remarks” would be kept in the C.C.R. folder of the respective officers. Now in the instant case, it is observed that the entries in 2010 and 2011 have been received on 13.1.2014 and put up before the Full Court, same are found received long two years after the respective years to which the CCR relates. Now in the instant case, it is observed that the entries in 2010 and 2011 have been received on 13.1.2014 and put up before the Full Court, same are found received long two years after the respective years to which the CCR relates. Thus, in view of Clause-21 of the circular, the CCR of 2010 and 2011 must be recorded “no remarks”. Thus, Annexures-1 and 3 have been quashed, but the prayer of the petitioner that she should be rated ‘outstanding’ for the relevant years, cannot be acceded to because the Court cannot in judicial side substitute the remark except expunging the same which are found non est. Such adverse entries in 2010 and 2011 cannot be counted for any purpose whatsoever in future for the petitioner. We further direct accordingly. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. B.K. Nayak, J. : I agree.