A.K.MATHUR, J. - (1.) IN all the three writ petitions similar question of law is involved, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) FOR the appreciation of controversy, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1583 of 1979 State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Narendra Singh Verma and Ors. are taken into consideration. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the orders of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated 15th January, 1979 (Annexure 4), 2nd April, 1979 (Annexure 6). The appellant non -petitioner No. 1 was holding the post of Second -in -Command in Border Home Guards at Bikaner with effect from 8th October, 1977 under the control of the Battalion Commandant Shri D. Ramdesani. While working under D. Ramdesani an adverse report was given to the appellant non -petitioner No. 1 and the same were communicated to him by the Reviewing Officer, the Deputy Director Home Guards, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide its letter dated 30th May, 1978. The appellant non -petitioner No. 1 submitted his representation against this adverse report, but the same was rejected and the decision was communicated to the appellant non -petitioner No. 1 on 1st August, 1978. Aggrieved against this the appellant non -petitioner No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. A preliminary objection was raised before the Tribunal that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such matters. The Tribunal considered this objection at great length and ultimately came to the conclusion by its order dated 15th January, 1979 that it has jurisdiction to entertain appeal against the rejection of the representation against the adverse entries in the Annual Performance Appraisal. Thereafter on merits also the Tribunal found that the adverse remarks against the appellant non -petitioner No. 1 has not been correctly recorded and thereby it accepted the appeal and expunged the adverse remarks against the appellant non -petitioner No. 1 in the Annual Performance Appraisal for the year 1977 -78. The State of Rajasthan, petitioner No. 1 here in, has preferred this writ petition and specifically raised the question that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such appeals.
(3.) MY answer to this question is in affirmative. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the rejection of representation against the adverse entries recorded in the Annual Performance Appraisal. In this connection, it would be proper to reproduce Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as under: Section 2(f) 'Service matter' means any one or more than one of the following matters relating to a Government servant: (i) Seniority; (ii) Promotion; (iii) Confirmation; (iv) Fixation of pay; (v) An order 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 revision while officiating in a higher service, grade or post otherwise than as a penalty; (vii) Witholding the pension or denying the maximum pension otherwise than as a penalty; (viii) Any other matter notified by the Government. Before I deal with this, it may also be useful to refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the same are reproduced as under: The proposal to constitute Administrative Tribunals to decide service matters was under consideration of the State Government for a long time. Service matters are broadly of two types : One type relating to disciplinary proceedings and the other relating to the rules of recruitment and other conditions of service. So far as the disciplinary matters are concerned, the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules make provisions for Departmental appeal or review. As regards the other service matters, the present practice is only of making a representation to the Government. In both the cases an aggrieved Government servant can approach the Civil Courts, by way of suits and the High Court or Supreme Court by means of writ petitions. The ordinary civil Courts take a considerable time in deciding the service matters which is expensive and burdensome to both the Government servant and the Government. The suggestion of establishing Administrative Tribunals has been from time to time considered by the Law Commission as well as by other eminent authorities. In view of the need for satisfactory and early final decision and to stop a flood of litigation in the Civil Courts, the State Government has decided to constitute Administrative Tribunals to decide appeals from the order of the Competent Authority and to bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in service matters. These Tribunals would provide an independent forum for decision in service matters and would be more economical both to the Government Servant and the Government. It will also lessen the burden of judicial courts and enable them to concentrate on other judicial matters.;