- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner and perused material on record.
(2.) THIS petition seeks to challenge adverse remarks in Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) of petitioner for the year 2004-2005, which appears to have been communicated to petitioner in the year 2007. Petitioner submitted a representation in the year 2007. His representation was rejected by Government vide communication dated 07.01.2008. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that copy of communication dated 07.05.2008 was served upon petitioner with another communication dated 21.12.2011, therefore, there was enormous delay in disposal of representation. It is contended that same recording officer had recorded the remarks on monthly progress report for the month of April, 2004 stating that assigned field work completed and petitioner was advised to submit pending final report. In this connection learned counsel has referred to Annexure-4(5), 4(6) and 4(7) annexed to writ petition and argued that once the reporting officer mentioned therein that assigned work was completed and performance was satisfactory, the very same reporting officer could not give repeated adverse remarks for finalization of project report and inadequate field stay. Learned counsel submitted that this is contrary to standard instructions contained in Rajasthan Civil services (Performance Appraisal Report) Instructions, 2008. He referred to clauses 11(1), 11(5) and 11(7) of said Instructions. He argued that the reporting officer should not form an opinion or arrive at a conclusion on insufficient datas or on hearsay information and adverse remarks should be recorded in APAR only when a person persistently fails to show improvement. Perusal of documents especially Annexures 4(5), 4(6) and 4(7), which are remarks on monthly progress report, shows that performance of petitioner was only satisfactory but in the first of these documents relied on by petitioner, he was advised to submit pending final report by end of May, 2004, which is indicative of fact that petitioner had not submitted complete reports of only previous months. Besides, petitioner has produced such monthly reports in respect of three months and not of remaining part of the year. It is the reporting Officer, who watches performance of an employee from close quarters. There is limited scope of interference by this court in the matters of adverse remarks. Moreover, the remarks, which are objected to by petitioner, cannot be said to be so adverse and are in the form of general observation with regard to his work efficiency, which is what has been finally reflected in categorization of his performance to be only satisfactory and has also been so approved by reviewing authority. I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Consequently upon dismissal of writ petition, stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and same is also dismissed. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.;