- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that although the petitioner is superannuated from service, but in this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the APAR for the year 2001-2002 communicated to him vide communication dated 19 th August, 2003; in which, the following comments were made:- He is very poor administrator. He hardly provided leadership in Hospital to staff or doctors. He tired to escape from responsibilities all the time. Often these were complaints from public representatives and2 other in unformal from in meetings about his inefficient way of hardly things. He is more suited to desk jobs.
(3.) The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that any observation or assertion in the APAR can be made by the competent authority after due application of mind, but, here in this case, as per reply itself the adverse entries were the petitioner for the year 2001-2002 on the basis of the communication sent by the District Collector dated 22 th January, 2004.;