JUDGMENT : B.N. Karia, J. 1. By means of filing this writ application under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for grant of the following relief: [a] to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order expunging the adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the period from 18.07.2006 to 31.07.2007 as conveyed by the letter dated 18.04.2007 (Annexure-A) and the letter/order dated Nil, March 2011 (Annexure-C) and restraining the Respondents from taking into consideration these remarks at the time of promotion of the petitioner. [b] during the pendency and final disposal of the petition, the respondent No. 2 may be restrained from acting upon the impugned adverse remarks in any manner at the time of promotion. 2. The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner who is serving as Maintenance Surveyor in the City Survey Office, Palana, Taluka: Nadiad, District: Kheda and was appointed as a Surveyor on 09.05.1974. Thereafter, he was promoted as Maintenance Surveyor on 29.12.1992 and later on, he was promoted as Shirestedar on 20.04.2001 and then reverted on 20.07.2007 for want of vacancy and thereafter, he was not promoted again. Thereafter, vide letter dated 18.04.2007, the respondent No. 3 communicated adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the period from 18.07.2006 to 31.03.2007. Thus, the petitioner made representation on 30.06.2007 against the said letter dated 18.04.2007 with a request to expunge adverse remarks. But, vide letter dated Nil March 2011, the respondent No. 2 rejected the representation of the petitioner and at that time, the respondent No. 4 was the reporting officer and respondent No. 3 was the reviewing officer. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of aforestated relief. 3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties at length. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Bhavyaraj Gohil for Mr. A.J. Yagnik, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the procedure of writing and maintaining Annual Confidential Reports has been prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 31.03.1989. 3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties at length. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Bhavyaraj Gohil for Mr. A.J. Yagnik, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the procedure of writing and maintaining Annual Confidential Reports has been prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 31.03.1989. Not only that, but as observed by this Court in the case of B.R. Kulkarni v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 19 GLR 1021, if the Annual Confidential Report of an employee is not written and maintained in accordance with the guidelines contained in the Resolution, adverse remarks are liable to be expunged. Thus, the act of respondents is not in consonance with the aforesaid resolution. That, the original ACR for the period from 18.07.2006 to 31.03.2007 are not available in the file of Confidential Report of the petitioner, as stated in the letter dated Nil March 2011, while rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Thus, in absence of original ACR, adverse remarks as communicated, are liable to be quashed. That, as per the prescribed form, the remarks noted by Reviewing Officer in para 3 are part and parcel of the complete Annual Confidential Report and as per letter dated 18.04.2007, remarks of the Reviewing Officer are not supplied to the petitioner. That, as stated in the letter dated Nil March 2011, remarks of the Reviewing Officer were also not available and thus, the impugned adverse remarks are incomplete. That, a representation was submitted by the petitioner on 30.06.2007 which was disposed of by the Department in the month of March 2011. Thus, it appears that the representation was decided after 45 months of its presentation. But, as per para 11 of the resolution dated 31.03.1989, the representation against the adverse remarks ought to have been decided within three months. Thus, the act of the respondent No. 2 is contrary to the established principles. That, the action on the part of respondent No. 2 of not considering the representation of the petitioner, and thereby denying to quash the adverse remarks passed, is illegal, contrary to the notification. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the petitioner to expunge the adverse remarks by allowing this petition. 5. On the other side, learned AGP Mr. That, the action on the part of respondent No. 2 of not considering the representation of the petitioner, and thereby denying to quash the adverse remarks passed, is illegal, contrary to the notification. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the petitioner to expunge the adverse remarks by allowing this petition. 5. On the other side, learned AGP Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the respondents has submitted that adverse remarks passed against the petitioner were communicated to him on 18th April 2007, which was challenged by the petitioner before the Settlement Commissioner, Land Record and appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed whereby adverse remarks were confirmed in part. Thereafter, Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted and the petitioner was not thought fit for consideration due to adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report. That, the petitioner had preferred Special Civil Application before this court and vide interim order dated 14.12.2011, this Court was pleased to direct by way of interim relief that if the petitioner is otherwise eligible and due for promotion to the next promotional post, adverse remarks for the period in question shall not come in his way for considering the case for the promotional post. That, in compliance with the order dated 14.12.2011, case of the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 2nd February 2012 and he was promoted as Shirestadar. That, the petitioner served on the post of Shirestadar till his superannuation, being 30.04.2012, and he was paid all the retiral benefits considering the service on the post of Shirestadar on his superannuation. That, the appellate authority has also considered all the aspects of application made by the petitioner by following the principles of natural justice, and thereafter, came to a conclusion that for one of the adverse remark, no material was found and remark was cancelled. However, the appellate authority confirmed other adverse remarks mentioned in the Annual Confidential Report. That, the appellate authority discussed each and every aspect of the matter, but nothing illegal is committed by the respondent authority in confirming adverse remarks against the petitioner. Hence, it was requested by learned AGP to dismiss the petition, as no prayer is required to be considered. 6. That, the appellate authority discussed each and every aspect of the matter, but nothing illegal is committed by the respondent authority in confirming adverse remarks against the petitioner. Hence, it was requested by learned AGP to dismiss the petition, as no prayer is required to be considered. 6. Having considered the facts of the case, arguments made by learned advocate for the respective parties, it appears that in the confidential report for the period from 18.07.2006 to 31.03.2007, certain adverse remarks were passed against the present petitioner at column No. 5, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 18 prepared on 18th April 2007. Here, before discussing the process in question, this Court would like to refer to the guidelines issued by the Government in Notification dated 31st March 1989 for managing confidential remarks of the Government employees/officers and to prepare the "adverse note" and to follow the procedure. Certain instructions are provided while preparing that report. This confidential report of the government employees/officers could generally be written by the immediate superior, who being the Reporting Officer, and when there being a superior officer between the government servant and his Reporting Officer, a duty is enjoined upon the Reporting Officer to consult the Superior Officer while writing the confidential report and the opinion of Supervisory Officer in writing ACR should be obtained by the Reporting Officer and written opinion given by the Supervisory Officer is to be kept in the file of the person concerned. It also appeared from the instructions issued in the aforesaid notification that the Reporting Officer would submit the confidential report written by him to the next higher officer, who will review the report and give his own remarks therein. The Reviewing officer would form his own judgment of the work and conduct of the person reported upon and would state his own agreement or disagreement on the remarks with a clear picture of the assessment made by the Reporting Officer. If the Reviewing Officer considers that the remarks prepared by the Reporting Officer do not have a complete picture of the ability, merit or defects of the person reported upon, he would require to add his details and specific remarks. As per the instruction No. 4, Reporting Officer has to maintain an Ephemeral Roll in respect of each Government servant whose work and conduct, he is required to report on. As per the instruction No. 4, Reporting Officer has to maintain an Ephemeral Roll in respect of each Government servant whose work and conduct, he is required to report on. The said ephemeral roll should be maintained in the form appended to the Government Resolution dated 31.03.1989. An ephemeral roll has to be written quarterly, but the reporting officer should make entries therein about the work of the government employee as seen from day to day. The remarks have to cover good as well as bad points that might come to the notice of the Reporting Officer. It is further provided in the instructions that Ephemeral roll has to be taken into account while writing the annual confidential report of that person. The Ephemeral Roll is to be destroyed one year after the confidential reports have been submitted to the Reviewing Officer. Forms and contents of confidential reports have also been prescribed. It is responsibility of the Reporting Officer to take particular care to disregard all subjective considerations and bias that he may have one way or the other, while preparing the annual confidential report of the Government employee. It is for this reason that the report is required to be reviewed by the Reviewing Officer. Further, responsibility of the Reviewing Officer would be to ensure that quality of reporting is such as to give a complete account of person's character and work covering bad as well as good points. A Reviewing Officer has to correct the conscious or unconscious bias that may be there in the assessment given by the reporting officer, particularly when any defect remarks have been made. It appears from the record that against the adverse remarks passed by the competent authority on 18.04.2007, a representation was made by the present petitioner to the Settlement Commissioner, Land Record, Gandhinagar on 30.06.2007 i.e., within a prescribed period. As provided under instructions of the aforesaid notification, the competent authority has to decide representation of the Government employee, in the present case the petitioner, within three months after receiving the same. It appears that the representation/appeal preferred by the present petitioner, was decided by the competent authority on Nil date in the month of March 2011 confirming adverse remarks at point No. 5, 6, 8 and 15 and deleted adverse remarks at point No. 18, after a period of 45 months. It appears that the representation/appeal preferred by the present petitioner, was decided by the competent authority on Nil date in the month of March 2011 confirming adverse remarks at point No. 5, 6, 8 and 15 and deleted adverse remarks at point No. 18, after a period of 45 months. In the decision taken by the respondent authority, it is stated that in the confidential report of the petitioner, there was no confidential record available of the petitioner for the period in question and no other information or record was provided to the appellate authority in connection with the dispute raised by the petitioner, and therefore, remarks of the Reporting Officer were not available. It transpires from the decision taken by the appellate authority that no Ephemeral Roll was maintained so far as the petitioner was concerned and the confidential report was prepared ordinarily at the end of the year, without any relevant record for the same. The contents raised by the petitioner pointing out non compliance of the Government Resolution/Circular dated 31.03.1989 and 06.07.2004 appears to be correct as the respondent is silent in his affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr. Ashok J. Nada. There is no specific denial of the allegations made by the petitioner in his reply. Therefore, it is clear that there was no day to day assessment of the performance of the petitioner, nor there was any contemporaneous record of the assessment of such performance and further, the adverse remarks in question were passed, such material furnishing verifiable facts were not available before the Reporting Officer. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that another infirmity which goes to the root, vitiates the impugned adverse remarks as arbitrary, in absence of maintenance of Ephemeral Roll available with the Department of the petitioner. It would be difficult to make objective and full assessment of the performance of the petitioner during the entire period in question before passing adverse remarks against him. On similar set of facts which arose before this Court in case of B.R. Kulkarni Dr. v. Government of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 1978 GLR 1021 , wherein this Court has observed as under: "31. Before parting with the case, one cannot help observing that this case brings into limelight two distressing features. On similar set of facts which arose before this Court in case of B.R. Kulkarni Dr. v. Government of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 1978 GLR 1021 , wherein this Court has observed as under: "31. Before parting with the case, one cannot help observing that this case brings into limelight two distressing features. First, the relationship between the officers at various hierarchical levels ion the academic side in the Public Health Department of the State Government leaves much to be desired. The nature of allegations and counter allegations made in this petition, the truth of which fortunately for all concerned. I am not called upon to determine, nonetheless reveal a sordid state of affairs. If proper atmosphere is not created so that those in charge of medical education at all levels can function on the basis of mutual trust and confidence and establish healthy working relationship between themselves, what example will they set and how will they instill a sense of discipline, duty and responsibility amongst those whom they are supposed to impart instructions and who, upon graduation, will go out to serve the ill, unhealthy and afflicted persons in the society:. It is high time that internal corrective measures are adopted by those in charge to clean the augean stables. Secondly, in the matter of writing and maintenance of annual confidential reports, the approach at all level appears to be thoroughly casual and perfunctory, it is possibly not realized that confidential reports of a Government servant make or mar his future, for, they are taken into account at all stages of advancement in his career. Besides, these entrusted with the task of preparing these reports have to perform a duty which is analogous to judicial function and which requires them to act with equanimity, objectivity, detachment and conscience. The performance of this function must be looked upon more as a discharge of duty than as an exercise of power. Those entrusted with this duty hold golden scales and not a weapon of offence. The human fallibility and want of objectivity are factors, which, however, cannot be eliminated altogether. It is for that reason that safeguards are provided in the executive instructions by laying down norms and guidelines in order to make the assessment in confidential reports as objective as possible. The human fallibility and want of objectivity are factors, which, however, cannot be eliminated altogether. It is for that reason that safeguards are provided in the executive instructions by laying down norms and guidelines in order to make the assessment in confidential reports as objective as possible. Besides, above the Reporting Officer there is the provision for a Reviewing officer and then there is the authority which considers the representation. At each of these three levels, there must be conscious effort to maintain complete objectivity and consciousness endeavour to thoroughly discharge the duty according to the guidelines. It is hoped that those who are charged with the duty to oversee that the entries in the confidential record are fair, just and objective will function, more effectively and intervene and rectify the mistakes, if any, committed at any lower level. Unless all this is ensured and arbitrariness insulated against, a time might well come when the method of selection based on past performance as disclosed by the confidential reports might have to be treated as not the just and proper method for adjudging suitability of the officer concerned for a higher post having regards to the broad sweep of Articles 14 and 16. It is hoped that this timely warning will not fall on deaf ears." 7. Pursuant to the interim relief granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner on 14th December 2011, he was promoted on 7th February 2012 to the post of Sheristadar and thereafter continued to serve on the said post, till he attained age of superannuation on 30th April 2012, making him entitled to draw all the retiral benefits; considering services rendered on the post of Sheristedar, till he attained superannuation. But, the question of adverse remarks passed against the petitioner for afore-mentioned period; as discussed hereinabove cannot be ignored, as it is clearly against the instructions issued by the Government in its two different notifications. 8. Resultantly, this writ application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned letter dated 18th April 2007 conveying adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the period from 18th July 2006 to 31st March 2007, and an undated order as at Annexure-C to the petition are hereby quashed and set-aside. The adverse remarks made in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the period aforestated stood expunged. The adverse remarks made in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the period aforestated stood expunged. Rule is made absolute to the aforestated extent.