JASRAJ CHOPRA, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of an adverse entry made in his confidential record in the year 1986 vide annexure-3 dated 29. 1. 1988 where by Hon'ble the Chief Justice has recorded an adverse remark in his annual Confidential Report for the year 1986 to the effect that his integrity is doubtful. A representation to expunge or annul that entry has been rejected an hence this writ petition.
(2.) IT was, however, conveyed to the petitioner that these remarks have been recorded by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and it is not the practice of this Court to intimate the name of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, who has recorded these adverse remarks/ observations and they are based on the observations of the screening committee headed by Hon'ble conveyed to the petitioner vide Annexure-5 dated 12. 2. 1988, in reply to his letter dated 6. 2. 1988 wherein the sought information as to who has recorded these remarks in his annual appraised report and to which part of the year they relate one to which part of the year they relate and what is the basis for these remarks. The petitioner was further informed that the report of Screening committee headed by Hon,ble. Justice Mr. N. M. Kasliwal being a secret document, ITs copy cannot be supplied to him. This has been conveyed to him vide Annexure-8 dated 18. 7. 1988. Vide Annuxre-10 dated 1. 10 1988, the petitioner has been informed that the basis of the remarks is the notes of the committee consisting of Hon,ble Mr. Justice N. M. Kasliwal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. C. Jain, Hon'ble, Mr. Justice S. C. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr, Justice K. S. Lodha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. S. T. Dave mentioning there in the complaints made to then by the members of the bar, when the Committee visited Pratapgarh and Kota. It may be useful to mention here that the petitioner remained at Pratapgarh from. 8. 8. 1967 to 1. 10. 1971 as Civil Judge Pratapgarh and her remained at Kota once as Judge, Labour/industry and A. C. D. Cases from 2. 7. 1980 to 1. 9. 1981 and again as District Judge, Kota from 7. 5. 1984 to 28. 9. 1985. To complete the sequence of the facts it may also be stated here that the Committee of five Hon'ble Judge headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. M. Kasliwal submitted its report to Hon'ble the Chief Justice in the year 1985 but no adverse remarks have been given in the Annual Appraisal Report for the year 1985 relating to the petitioner but these remarks have been made the basis of the Annual Appraisal Report of the petitioner for the year 1986. These remarks have been assailed by Mr. M. Mridul the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the ground that Annexure-15 dated 12. 4. 1989 by which the petition representation has been rejected against his remarks is not a speaking order. These remarks are without jurisdiction as the author of these remarks joined as Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court on 1. 9. 1986 and at that time, Shri O. P. Jain was on deputation with the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer as its member and therefore, Hon'ble the Chief Justice did not have any opportunity to watch his work. It was further contended by Mr. Mridul the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the these remarks are uncalled for and without jurisdiction. He has submitted that the year for which these remarks were given against the petitioner, another Chief Justice has given very good report and therefore, when two chief justices differ in their opinion as regards the performance of an officer in the same year then such adverse remarks should be recorded only after a through enquiry and not in the casual manner. These remarks have also been assailed on the ground that they are based on the notices or dates collected by the Committee headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. M. Kasliwal but that material has not been supplied to the petitioner and, therefore, his right to represent against these remarks has been seriously jeopardised and therefore, such remarks cannot be sustained. It was next contended by Mr. M. Mridul the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Annual Confidential Report the Annual Appraisal Report relates to the assessment of an Officer for that particular year the past material collected by a committee cannot be made the basis to appraise the performance of an officer in the subsequent years. Some adverse remarks could have been recorded in the year 1985 but they could not have been made in the year 1986 and, therefore, such an adverse entry is unfair. According to Mr. M. Mridul the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the same authority who gave the adverse remarks and hence, the rejection of representation is biased and the procedure adopted for disposal of the representation is unfair. It was also contended that these adverse entries relates to the year 1986 but they are based on the material which has been collected for the period when the petitioner worked as Civil Judge, Pratapgarh from 8. 8. 1967 to 1. 10. 1971 Judge, Labour, Industry and A. C. D. cased from 2. 7. 1980 to 1. 9. 1981 and District Judge, Kota form 7. 5. 1984 to 28. 9. 1985 Mr. Mridul has submitted that the petitioner after he remained at Pratapgarh was promoted as Additional District Judge on 15. 4. 1972. He was again promoted as District Judge on 28. 8. 1985. He was granted selection grade of the District Judge with retrospective effect i. e. from 1. 6. 1981 vide order dated 4. 2. 1984. Thus, the entire adverse material that has been collected by the Committee relating to the period between 8. 8. 1967 to 1. 10. 1971 stands washed off because thereafter, the petitioner has been promoted not only as Additional District Judge or the District Judge but he has been granted selection grade of the District Judge with retrospective effect. As regards the adverse material that has been collected for the period relating to 2. 7. 1988 to 1. 9. 1981 when the petitioner worked as Judge, Labour, Industry and A. C. D. Cases. Kota and from 7. 5. 1984 to 28. 8. 1985 when the petitioner worked as District Judge, Kota, the contention of Mr. Mridul is that the petitioner has been selected by a high-power committee headed by Hon'ble the chief Justice for the post of Member, Board of Revenue for Rajasthan At Ajmer. This committee in Addition to Hon'ble the chief Justice consisted of the chief secretary to the Govt. Chairman, Rajasthan public Service commission and Secretary to the Govt. in the Revenue Department etc. According to Mr. Mridul, when such a high power committee has selected him for the post of the member, Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer then it clearly meant that there was no advance material against the petitioner prior to that selection and even if it was there it stands washed off.
(3.) MR. M. MRidul, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has been confirmed on the post of District judge (selection Grade ) vide order dated 5. 4. 1989. He has submitted that when despite these adverse remarks he has been confirmed on the post of District Judge (Selection Grade) vide Order dated 5. 4. 1989, this adverse entry relating to the year 1986 stands automatically washed off. It was also contended by MR. MRidul that the state Govt. has issued number of Circulars about filling up of the Annual Appraisal reports and they contain certain principles of natural justice and that procedure has not been followed in this case neither for recording of the Annual Appraisal Report nor as regards the disposal of his representation and, therefore, neither these adverse remarks can be justified nor the rejection of the representation made by the petitioner can be justified. A number of authorities have also been cited by MR. M. MRidul the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his contentions. A return has also been filed on behalf of the respondents. I have heard Mr. M. Mridul the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for the respondents. ;