Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish Chandra Jain vs State Of Raj. And Ors on 17 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11602/2009
Jagdish Chandra Jain, S/o Shri Ashu Lal Jain, Aged about 55
years, R/o - Ward No. 6, Chanchal Bag Chauk, Dhani Bazar,
Barmer, District - Barmer. (Presently posted at Sr. Secondary
School Siwana, Barmer as a Lecturer of Chemistry).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. District Education Officer (Secondary), Barmer.
4. Principal, Senior Secondary Girls School, Barmer.
5. Principal, Senior Secondary School, Baytu, Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta, Govt. Counsel.
Mr. Bhupesh Charan.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
17/09/2025
1. Heard both the sides.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition has been made to
the adverse entries recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports
(ACRs) for the years 2003-2004, 2005-2006, and 2007-2008 and
consequently, the postponement of promotion, Assured Career
Progression (ACP) and other financial benefits.
3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the adverse
entries were made in the above-referred ACRs and those adverse
entries were communicated to the petitioner by the competent
authority. In response to the said communications, the petitioner
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 10:29:50 AM)
(2 of 4) [CW-11602/2009]
made a representation against those adverse entries. The further
case of the petitioner is that one of the authorities, who issued the
communication in question by which the adverse entries were
communicated, after considering the representation of the
petitioner, has expunged the adverse remarks; and in spite of said
expungement, the case of the petitioner for grant of promotion,
ACP, and other consequential financial benefits has not been
considered by the respondents-authorities.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted
that the said expungement of the adverse entry was only relating
to one year i.e., 2005-2006. There is no material on record to
show that the adverse entries made in the ACR of the petitioner
relating to the year 2003-2004 were also expunged. However, he
also submits that the adverse entry relating to the ACR for the
year 2006-2007, after considering the representation of the
petitioner, was maintained as it is. In the light of the said status of
the adverse remarks in the ACR of the petitioner, the authorities
have rightly postponed the promotion, ACP, and other financial
benefits. It is also submitted that the grievance relating to the
effect of the adverse entries has not been challenged in the
present writ petition; as such, the same cannot be said to be
maintainable regarding the reliefs as claimed by the petitioner.
5. I have gone through the record of the case and after
considering the arguments advanced by both sides, it is not in
dispute that the adverse entries were made in the ACRs of the
petitioner for the years 2003-2004, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007
and such adverse entries were also communicated to the
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 10:29:50 AM)
(3 of 4) [CW-11602/2009]
petitioner by different communications by different authorities. It
is also not in dispute that the petitioner has made representations
against communication/recording of the adverse entries. It
appears that after considering the representation of the petitioner,
the higher authorities have passed the order expunging the
adverse entry made in the ACR relating to the year 2005-2006.
The adverse entry in the ACR relating to the year 2006-2007 was
maintained as it is. However, there is no material on record to
show whether the adverse entry made in the ACR of the petitioner
relating to the year 2003-2004 was expunged or maintained; the
petition is silent in this regard.
6. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner is that before making any adverse entry/remark in the
ACR of the employee, the proposed entries have to be
communicated to the concerned employee. In this regard, he has
relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt
Vs. Union of India & Ors.; 2008 (8) SCC 725 wherein it was
held that any adverse entry made in the ACR has to be
communicated. The authority higher than the authority who
made/recorded the adverse entry has to communicate such entry
and shall decide the representation made by the petitioner against
such communication of the adverse entries. He further
emphasized the other necessities as stated in the judgment
(supra) which were required to be followed.
7. I see no reason or logic behind the argument that
officials/officers are required to be heard before making any
adverse entry. The requirement of law is that after the adverse
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 10:29:50 AM)
(4 of 4) [CW-11602/2009]
entry is made in the ACR of the employee, the same is required to
be communicated and after receiving any representation from the
concerned employee, the same is required to be considered and
decided by the authority higher than the authority who made such
adverse entry. In the present case, the aforesaid exercise has
already been done. For the yaer 2005-2006 - adverse entries
were expunged. For the year 2006-2007, the adverse entry was
ordered to be maintained as it is. No material to show whether
adverse entries were expunged for the year 2003-2004.
Postponement of the promotion, ACP, and other financial benefits
are not under challenge on the ground that consensus of
maintaining the adverse remark was only for one year. The effect
of the same is to be only for one year, not more than that. As
such, this Court is not inclined to enter into such aspect of the
matter. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the instant writ petition is dismissed being
devoid of any merit.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
14-Mohan/-
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 10:29:50 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
