Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Brief facts that cull out from the present petition are that the petitioner, who is an officer from the Rajasthan Administrative Services, filed the present writ petition whereby he has challenged the adverse remarks entered in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the period from September, 1994 till March, 1995 stating that the disposal of cases was less than the required standard. The adverse remark was conveyed by communication dated 21/11/1995 while he was holding the post of Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhawani Mandi. The adverse remark is however with regard to the period when he was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, Sojat, Distt. Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'SDO') for the period from September, 1994 to March, 1995. At the material time, the petitioner's reporting officer was the Collector, Pali and the reviewing officer was Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur. The accepting authority is the Chairman, Board of Revenue.

3. It is stated by the petitioner that his six monthly report was very satisfactory and there was no complaint nor any letter was given to him in respect of improvement of work. A certificate to the effect was issued by the District Collector, Pali on 07/09/1994 informing that the petitioner's work was excellent in the first six month's period of 1994-95.

4. The present remark is however for the period from September, 1994 till March, 1995 for which it has been stated that the disposal of cases was found to be less in accordance with the norms fixed by the Government. It is submitted by the petitioner that the norms fixed by the State Government were that one must dispose of ten suits or 30 applications per month, which means for the relevant period from 1st September, 1994 to 31st March, 1995, the SDO was required to decide 70 suits or 210 applications in seven months.

5. It is further submitted that the State Government itself has provided relaxation in the standards for the period when there was an election as the SDO was required to do several administrative jobs and during the election period, he is not supposed to fully devote to judicial work. As the matter relates to the elections, top priority has to be given with regard to the election work and date wise programme is laid down for conducting of elections. The petitioner has stated that he was required to prepare the electoral list and strictly adhere to the directions issued by his officers for the purpose of preparation of elections.

6. Further, it has been stated that the Lawyers went on strike from 08/08/1994 to 07/10/1994 on the call given by the Bar Association, Sojat where the petitioner was posted. It is stated that no Advocate was appearing in any of the cases before the petitioner and on account of non-appearance of the Advocates, disposal of the revenue suits/cases as well as the applications/petitions was not possible as cross-examination of the witnesses is required to be done by the Advocates and even the misc. applications are required to be heard in the presence of the Advocates. The work of disposal of revenue suits is akin to that of civil cases and the judicial procedure has to be strictly followed. The litigants, who appear in person, are uneducated persons and it cannot be expected from them to present their cases or argue their cases relating to the revenue suits and therefore, the work of disposal comes to a stand-still.

7. From 01/01/1995 to 31/03/1995, the period was that of elections and as per directions of the Government itself, 50% relaxation during the election period has been provided. It is also stated that for the period from 02/11/1994 to 15/11/1994, the petitioner was on earned leave.

8. Accordingly he submitted a detailed representation pointing out such relaxation as provided by the Government and for the period during which the strike was there and for the period during which he had remained on leave, the norms fixed by the Board of Revenue could