- (1.) The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant after placing reliance on the Full Bench decision in Tayyab Ali vs. State of Raj. (1 ). He has held that adverse entries in the ACRs cannot be challenged before the Court at a stage when the entries are communicated but can be challenged only at the time when the person is not selected for promotion or in view of the adverse remarks he is likely to be reverted.
(2.) In this special appeal we have to see whether the learned Single Judge has rightly refused to exercise the jurisdiction on basis of the preliminary objection. We have gone through Tayyab Ali's case . In this case, the question referred to the Full Bench was as under :- "whether an adverse entry in the Annual performance Appraisal Report of the Government Servant will fall under Clause (v) of Section 2 (f) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 and the Service Appellate Tribunal will have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal in the matter - The answer to this question depended upon the definition of service matters as defined in Section 2 (f) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act , 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). This Act defines 'service matters as relating to ," (i) seniority ; (ii) promotion; (iii) confirmation; (iv) fixation of pay, (v) Denying or varying pay, allowances, pension and other service conditions to the disadvantage of a Government servant, otherwise than as a penalty; (vi) cases of reversion while officiating in a higher service, grade or post to lower service, grade or post otherwise than as a penalty; (vii) withholding the pension or denying the maximum pension otherwise than as the penalty; and (viii) any other matter notified by the Government. " Considering this definition it was held that adverse entries in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report or an order rejecting representation against the same is not included within the ambit of clause (v) of section 2 (f) of the Act, and therefore, an appeal to the Tribunal merely against such an adverse entry or an order rejecting representation against the same does not lie. The question before the Full Bench was about the maintainability of an appeal before the appellate Tribunal and not about the maintainability of a writ petition against adverse entry in the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports. Tayyab Ali's case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, the petitioner has directly approached this Court by way of a writ petition to challenge the adverse entries given in his Annual Performance Appraisal Reports. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Lakhi Ram vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2) in which it was held that a writ was maintainable against the expunction of adverse remarks in the character roll of the respondent on the ground that expunction of remarks would prejudice the petitioner's chances of promotion. The Govt. itself had expunged the adverse remarks and when an affected person approached in writ petition, it was not entertained by the High Court taking a view that the petitioner was not entitled to complain against expungement of adverse remarks made in the Annual Confidential Report of another Officer, in the Supreme Court, this view was not upheld and the writ was held to be maintainable. There is no dearth of cases in which this Court has entertained writ petitions against adverse remarks in the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports and ordered expunction of the same. The order of the learned Single Judge refusing to entertain the writ petition is to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The writ petition is held to be main- tainable and the order dated 7th March, 1991 of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition shall be placed before the Bench having the roster of writ petitions and the same shall be decided on merits. Let the writ petition be placed for hearing on 9th October, 1995.;