M.R. CALLA, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order Ex. 3, dt. 1/9/1989 whereby the adverse remarks in the ACR for the year 1982 were conveyed to the petitioner and the order dated 27th January 1990, Ex. 5, whereby the petitioners representation dated 11/9/1989 against adverse remarks was rejected.

2. The petitioner in this case is a member of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and his case is that he was appointed to the Rajasthan Judicial Service on 1.06.1971 and was promoted as Civil Judge and then as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and was further promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge in the cadre of RHJS vide order dated 11.08.1987. By a communication dated 1.09.1989 Ex. 3, the petitioner was informed that while assessing his work for the year 1982, it was observed in his Annual Confidential Report as under—

"You write judgments ordinarily & not laboured judgments. You never bother yourself in the matters of keeping control over the office, administrative capacity and tact. You cannot be depended upon for jobs assigned to you."

3. Against these observations, the petitioner submitted a representation, Ex. 4, dated 11.09.1989 and the same was rejected as per the communication dated 27.01.1990, Ex.5. The petitioner has submitted that the remarks were conveyed to him after the expiry of a period of seven years when the same have become ineffective and inoperative because in spite of these observations he was promoted to the post of Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in 1983 and was further promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge in the year 1987. It has been submitted that in the year 1982, from April to December,- the period to which the Annual Confidential Report relates, he was posted as Roadways Magistrate. It has been alleged that the Reporting Officer had no cause of complaint regarding the functioning of the petitioner nor he had found anything lacking in his control. No staff attached with the Roadways Magistrate was appointed by the District Judge and the members of the said staff were from the Department of Roadways and were directly under the control of the Roadways authorities; and since the control over the staff was with the Roadways, the question of lacking control on the part of the petitioner did not arise. It is also alleged that the Reporting Officer had not appointed him for functioning in connection with the administrative job. In para 17 of the petition, the petitioner has alleged that for the reasons submitted in his representation, Ex. 4, it is clear that the communication of these remarks was an act of bias and prejudicial attitude of respondent No. 1. In the representation Ex. 4, it has been stated that the petitioner does not know as to whether the adverse observations have been by the learned District Judge or the Honble High Court, but he presumes that the same must have been made by the then learned District Judge and, the presumption is based on the premises that the then District Judge felt annoyed with the petitioner on account of his inability to abide by his directions in some matters relating to providing vehicle without charge. The petitioner has referred to the particular incident dated 11.11.1982 when he was asked to provide vehicle free of charge for one Shri Majumdar, Deputy General Manager, Heavy Electricles and which he could not arrange. According to the petitioner, this caused extreme annoyance to the learned District Judge and, according to the petitioner, he has serious apprehension that the adverse observations must have been made by him. The petitioner has also alleged that the then District Judge had no occasion to find his judgment as unlaboured one as, in 1982, he did not hear any appeal from the judgment or order, nor he heard any revision against any judgment or order passed by the petitioner and further that there was no appellate Court at Ajmer or at any other place which found his judgment below standard or unlaboured

Click Here to Read the rest of this document