VIJAY BISHNOI, AMITAVA ROY, JJ. - (1.) THE writ petitioner, a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service (for short hereinafter referred -to as "the Service") seeks to annul the remark "Below Average" as well as the decision rejecting his representation for expunction thereof.
(2.) WE have heard Mr.Ravindra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.V.K.Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent -High Court. Briefly stated the pleaded facts outlining the rival versions are that the petitioner, on being inducted in the Service as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, was posted at Nokha, District Bikaner, in the year 2007. During the period 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007, the percentage of his disposal of cases was 144.66, which, as claimed by him, in terms of the revised norms to adjudge the level of performance, deserved grading of "good". By letter dated 26.11.2008 issued by the Registry of the High Court, he was communicated that in his A.C.R. for the year 2007, he had been graded on the basis of overall performance to be "Below Average". Thereby he was intimated as well that he could represent against this assessment. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted his representation, which was rejected and this decision was conveyed to him by the letter dated 3.4.2010 issued by the Registrar General of the High Court. Being aggrieved, he has sought judicial intervention for redress, contending in substance that having regard to his percentage of disposal of cases and overall performance, the grading of "Below Average" is not only unwarranted, he ought to be on expunction thereof, graded as "Good" at the minimum.
(3.) THE respondent -High Court in its reply, while endorsing the grading of the petitioner "Below Average", has not only referred -to a report of the then Hon'ble Inspecting Judge of district Bikaner made on the basis of His Lordship's surprise inspection of the Station Nokha, where at the relevant time, he (petitioner) was posted as Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) cum Judicial Magistrate, but also detailed the relevant excerpts therefrom disclosing lapses, irregularities and remiss on his part on various counts. According to the answering respondent, on an overall consideration of relevant aspects, the petitioner was, thus, graded "Below Average". According to it, this remark was duly communicated to him (petitioner) against which he submitted his representation. That his representation was duly considered and rejected, was also stated. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner controverting the contents of the report, drawn up and submitted by the then Hon'ble Inspecting Judge. ;