RATISH KUMAR GARG Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a member of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services, has preferred the present writ petition, feeling aggrieved of the communication dated 07.07.2017, vide which the Registrar General had informed that his representation against adverse remarks made in his Annual Confidential Report (hereinafter referred to as 'ACR'), communicated to him vide letter dated 04.09.2015 has been rejected.

(2.) The facts stated succinctly are that the petitioner having been selected in the Rajasthan Judicial Services was appointed on the post of Judicial Magistrate on 08.02.1996. He was subsequently promoted to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- cum-Civil Judge (SD) on 06.08.2002 and thereafter taken in Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services in the month of April, 2014 on adhoc basis. However, the petitioner's adhoc appointment was not extended and he was reverted back to the Rajasthan Judicial Services. According to the petitioner, the same was done in wake of an adverse entry made in first part of his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the year 2014. The adverse remarks made in his ACR of 2014 were communicated by the respondent-High Court vide letter dated 4.9.2015, which was received by the petitioner in the first week of October, 2015. The petitioner thereafter proceeded to make a detailed representation dated 19.01.2016 to the High Court through the Registrar General. In the representation aforesaid, the petitioner stated that his work disposal was 289.99% and he had disposed of total 129 main criminal cases, 4 civil suits by compromise and 214 main criminal cases of petty nature in Mega Lok Adalat. With a view to seek expunction of the adverse remarks made in his ACR, he had made various other submissions on the aspects other than the disposal.

(3.) The Registrar General in turn vide communication dated 07.07.2017, informed the petitioner that his representation against the remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 2014-I has been considered and rejected. It will be apt to reproduce the entire text of the aforesaid short communication dated 07.07.2017, which runs thus :