- (1.) HEARD finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY this writ petition challenge has been made to adverse remarks conveyed to petitioner for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98. It is precisely on the ground of delay of three years as it was conveyed in the year 2000. It is submitted that delay to convey adverse remarks is fatal and goes against the basic spirit of conveying the same. The object of making and communication of adverse remarks is to give an opportunity to the officer to improve his performance, conduct or character. The argument is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Shri P.C. Wadhwa, 1987 SCC(2) 602. It is, thus, prayed that adverse remarks for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 may be quashed. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that there was no delay in conveying adverse remarks to the petitioner. In fact, he was on deputation to DRDA yet, it was conveyed without lapse of time vide orders dated 22.7.2000 (Annx.6 & 7). Three years delay has been alleged in ignorance of documents on record. The matter was taken up before the competent authority and finally decision was taken to convey adverse remarks to petitioner. Since process took time, these remarks could be conveyed immediately in the year 2000. Thus, on the sole ground of alleged delay, adverse remarks may not be quashed. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It is a case where petitioner was conveyed adverse remarks for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The only ground urged to challenge is delay to convey adverse remarks. Arguments have been supported by judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. P.C. Wadhwa (supra). From a perusal of record, it comes out that adverse remarks were conveyed by the competent authority vide orders dated 22.7.2000 (Annx.6 & 7). The petitioner filed explanation to it but did not raise issue of delay therein. It has been raised herein for the first time without indicating as to when he had produced APAR i.e. as to whether it was within time or not As per Schedule at Annexure "A' of Rajasthan Civil Services (PAR) Instruction also, it has to be produced by the reprotee, though these instructions came in the year 2008 thus wrongly relied by the petitioner. So far as judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Shri P.C. Wadhwa (supra) is concerned, that was in reference to rules applicable therein. Referring to Rule-5 of All India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 applicable therein, the matter was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court therein Rules-5, 6 & 7 of the Rules of 1970 provid period within which exercise is to be undertaken to convey adverse remarks. Thus, judgment in reference rests on particular facts and the rules applicable therein. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that adverse remarks should be conveyed without inordinate delay. It is no doubt that object to convey adverse remarks is to give officer concerned an opportunity to improve his performance, conduct and character. In the aforesaid background adverse remarks should be conveyed to the official concerned at the earliest. However, in the present matter, I do not find that adverse remarks were conveyed with inordinate delay rather for the aforesaid, petitioner should have given as to when he produced APAR but petitioner is silent on it. In view of discussion made herein above, I find no merit in the writ petition.
(3.) AT this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was even denied benefit of selections grades. It goes without saying that petitioner's case should have been considered for grant of selection grades for its grant or denial, if not considered as yet. In any case, respondents are directed to consider petitioner's case for selection scales in accordance with law. The writ petition stand disposed of accordingly.;