KHUSHAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that although the petitioner is superannuated from service, but in this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the APAR for the year 2001-2002 communicated to him vide communication dated 19 th August, 2003; in which, the following comments were made:-

(3.) The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that any observation or assertion in the APAR can be made by the competent authority after due application of mind, but, here in this case, as per reply itself the adverse entries were the petitioner for the year 2001-2002 on the basis of the communication sent by the District Collector dated 22 th January, 2004.