P.K. Lohra, J.

Petitioner, a Lecturer in Mathematics, under the College Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, has preferred this writ petition to assail order/communication dated 1st of September 2010 (Annex.2), Communication dated 27th of February 2012 (Annex.4) and order/communication dated 26th of October 2012 (Annex.8) and has prayed for quashment of these communications/orders.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that at the inception of her service career petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Maths) on temporary basis in Meera Girls College, Udaipur vide order dated 19th of October 1995. It is averred in the petition by the petitioner that right from the threshold of her service career she is discharging her duties with utmost sincerity, diligence and dedication and is having an unblemished service record. As per version of the petitioner, to her utter surprise, she was addressed communication dated 1st of September 2010 (Annex.2), whereby she was conveyed disparaging remarks in her Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the year 2008-09. The author of communication Annex.2 found her performance unsatisfactory under the heads; Output of Work, Leadership Qualities, Analytic Ability, Management Ability, Decision-making ability and Ability to take initiative. The overall evaluation of the adverse remarks, made against the petitioner was that she is an unimpressive personality (simpleton) and poor in performance due to which examination results were also unsatisfactory, i.e. less than 50% in the three question papers. That apart, on many counts, her performance is found wanting with a caustic remark of having frustrated mentality.

3. In response to communication Annex.2, petitioner submitted a detailed reply/representation and pointed out that assessment of her performance is not founded on objective considerations. The petitioner also highlighted in her representation that she has given 100% result in the third paper of third year, excluding the students with short attendance, and overall result of the class was 80.95% and 84.61% in second year class. While referring to the adverse attributes mentioned in communication Annex.2, petitioner made a sincere endeavour to persuade the competent authority to expunge adverse remarks in the APAR with the support of documentary proofs.

4. Be that as it may, the reply/representation of the petitioner remained pending consideration before the competent authority for almost one and half year and finally the same is rejected vide Annex.4 dated 27th of February 2012. In the brief rejection order no reasons as such were assigned. Receipt of communication Annex.4 gave a profound shock to the petitioner but she did not give up pursuit of vindicating herself and to get rid of the adverse entries. In order to accomplish her mission, petitioner addressed a letter to the college administration on 13th of September 2012 soliciting certain informations and in response to the same, Principal of the College divulged requisite informations (Annex.6) to her on 15th of September 2012.

5. The informations (Annex.6), received by the petitioner from college administration, clarified the position that in fact no endeavour was made for objective assessment of her performance, therefore, in these circumstances petitioner once again submitted a representation (Annex.7) before the competent authority on 25th of September 2012 but that effort of the petitioner also proved abortive and vide communication dated 26th of October 2012 (Annex.8) her prayer is declined by citing the reason that there is no provision for appeal/review in the matter. Essentially, the petitioner has laid challenge to the impugned communications on the ground that adverse remarks in her APAR for the year 2008-09 are not founded on objective assessment and entire basis of the adverse remarks are certain