1. - The petitioner joined the Rajasthan Judicial Service in the year 1976 and was promoted to R.H.J.S. in the year 1979. While he was serving as a member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, the following adverse remarks for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 were conveyed to him vide three separate communications dated 13.6.1986.For the year 1980

"He must improve his relations with the staff and judicial officers, He is more interested in deciding criminal cases. He should improve the image." For the year 1981

"Should improve his relations with the staff and brother officers. Quality of his judgments needs improvement."
For the year 1982

"Does not keep good relations with his staff and the members of the Bar. His knowledge of law and the quality of his judgments need improvement. He does not enjoy sound reputation."

2. Against the adverse remarks for all these three years, the petitioner submitted a joint representation and this representation was rejected by a common order in the year 1988/1989. Subsequently, the joint review petition dated 22.10.1998 was submitted and that too, was rejected by a common order dated 30.11.99. Against rejection of his representation as above, the petitioner preferred this writ petition on 18.4.2000. When the petition came up before the court, notice was issued to the respondent on 28.4.2000 and on 14.7.2000 while granting time to the respondents for filling reply, the court passed order to fix this matter for final hearing.

3. The prayers as made by the petitioner in the present writ petition are as under:

(a) The respondent may kindly be called upon to produce the entire record pertaining to the case;

(b) The adverse entries made in the A.P.A.Rs. of the petitioner pertaining to the year 1980, 1981 and 1982 may kindly be quashed and expunged.

(c) The respondent High Court may kindly be directed to award all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

(d) The respondent may kindly be restrained from taking into consideration the said adverse entries against the petitioner in any manner whatsoever;

(e) Cost of the writ petition may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner.

(f) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly also be issued in favour of the Petitioner."

4. On behalf of the respondents, reply to the writ petition dated 13.2.2002 has been filed seeking to traverse the petitioner's case.

5. For the year 1980, the petitioner has stated in para 3 of the writ petition that he was posted as Additional Distt. Judge No.2 at Bharatpur in February, 1980 and it was a newly created post and the petitioner was the first judicial officer to be posted as such. Prior to that, he was posted as Additional Distt. Judge No.2, Always. It has been alleged that some other judicial officer namely Shri Niranjan Singh had also been transferred to Bharatpur as Additional Distt. Judge. Because the petitioner had joined at Bharatpur as Addl. Distt. Judge No.2 earlier than Shri Niranjan Singh, he had been allotted Government quarter by the district administration. The District Judge, Bharatpur did not like the allotment of the Government bungalow to the petitioner because he was interested in allotment of this bungalow to Shri Niranjan Singh.

6. Therefore, the Distt. Judge, Bharatpur wrote a letter dated 20.2.1980 to the district administration for allotment of the said bungalow to Shri Niranjan Singh. The other judicial officer Shri Niranjan Singh had occupied the said bungalow on the basis of oral permission of the concerned District Magistrate. On account of this unpleasant incident, the Distt. Judge felt annoyed from the petitioner. The petitioner had worked as Additional Distt. Judge at Bharatpur from February, 1980 to August, 1980. The case of the petitioner is that the Distt. Judge, Bharatpur felt annoyed from him and therefore, the remarks which have been recorded against him for the year 1980 are result of the annoyan