- (1.) Petitioner who is a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service has filed this petition with the prayer that adverse remarks made in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1982, 1983, 1986 and 1987 may be ordered to be expunged and the order dated 27th January 1990 by which his representations have been rejected, be set aside.
(2.) Necessary facts of the case are that the petitioner joined Rajasthan Judicial Service in the year 1980. During last 13 years he has remained posted as Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate as well as Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate. In the year 1982 the petitioner remained posted as Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karauli, district Sawaimadhopur. Shri Govind Ram Bansal and Amar Nath Purohit were District Judges at Sawai Madhopur during that period. In the year 1983 the petitioner was posted as Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, at Mandal, district Bhilwara during the relevant year. In the years 1985 to June 1988 the petitioner remained posted as Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhalawar and during this period Shri Arvind Kumar Misra, Shri Amar Singh Godhara and Shri Navrang Rai Jatav were District Judges, Jhalawar for different periods. For the year 1982, the petitioner was conveyed adverse remarks in his confidential report vide letter dated 14.9.89 of the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court. For the year 1983 he was conveyed with adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Report by communication dated 14.9.89 (Annex. 2) of the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court. For the years 1986 and 1987 also the petitioner has been conveyed with adverse remarks vide communications dated 14.9.89 (Annexs. 3 and 4). On receipt of these communications the petitioner submitted applications Annexures 5, 6, 7 and 8 and requested that he may be supplied with the grounds on which adverse remarks were made in his annual confidential reports. According to him these grounds were not supplied to him. He therefore, made representations (Annexs. 9 to 12), dated 28.9.89. These representations have been rejected by order dated 27th January 1990 (Annex. 13). The petitioner has challenged the adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports on the ground that remarks were communicated to him after a lapse of number of years and this abnormal delay in the communication of the adverse remarks has by itself made them insignificant. Asserting that on account of delay in communication of adverse remarks the petitioner has suffered serio us prejudice, he has pleaded that adverse remarks should be quashed only on the ground of delayed communication. Another plea raised by the petitioner is that adverse opinions recorded in his Confidential Reports are without any basis and that the remarks are arbitrary and cryptic. He has challenged rejection of his representation on the ground of arbitrariness. He has pleaded that he had not been furnished with the material which constituted the basis of adverse remarks. Petitioner has stated that during January 1986 to June 1986 Shri A.K. Mishra was his District Judge. Between June 1987 and December 1987, Shri Navrang Rai was his District Judge. Neither of them made adverse remarks in his confidential reports. Shri Amar Singh Godhara was his third District Judge and he has made adverse remarks due to personal annoyance which was on account of a mandatory injunction passed by the petitioner against the then Collector, Jhalawar who happened to be the close to Shri Amar Singh Godhara. He has further claimed that there were no complaints against him from the members of the Bar during the years 1982 and 1983. His relations with the Bar were very cordial. On the basis of these submissions the petitioner has made the prayers as aforesaid.
(3.) In reply, the respondent has stated that the petitioner had remained posted as Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar between 30.5.85 to 7.6.88. Shri Arvind Kumar Mishra was District Judge, Jhalawar between 14.12.84 to 8,5.86. Shri Amar Singh Godhara was District Judge, Jhalawar from 11.6.86 to 14.8.87 and Shri Navrang Rai was District Judge, Jhalawar between 18.8.87 to 25.6.88. Respondent has pleaded that representations of the petitioner against the adverse remarks were duly considered and the same were rejected. Respondent has stated that the Government instructions regarding Annual Confidential Reports/Annual Performance Appraisal Reports are not applicable to the members of the Rajasthan Judicial Service. It has also been stated by the respondent that a decision to communicate the uncommunicated adverse remarks was taken by the High Court in the year 1989 and in pursuance of that decision large number of Judicial Officers were communicated with adverse entries. Representations submitted by the petitioner were considered by a Committee of three Hon'ble Judges of the High Court and on recommendation of the Committee Hon'ble the Chief Justice has rejected his representations. Respondent has pleaded that adverse remarks have been made by the reporting officers who were in position to watch the performance of the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that the adverse remarks have been made without any basis.;