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. 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 oth