JUDGMENT 1. - Through this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the adverse remarks recorded against him for the year 1985-86 and the order dated 9th January, 1987 (Annex.1) whereby the adverse remarks were communicated and the order dated 2nd June, 1987 (Annex.8) whereby the petitioner's representation against adverse remarks has been rejected. 2. The petitioner is a District Ayurved Officer. During the relevant period 1985-86 he was posted as District Ayurved Officer Jhunjhunu. By a communication dated 9th January 1987 sent to him the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Government of Rajasthan the petitioner was conveyed the following adverse remarks in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report 1985-86 : 'There were complaints about his work and his general reputation was not good. Not yet fit for promotion." 3. Against the above communication the petitioner submitted a representation under his covering letter dated 2nd February, 1987 along with some documents. This representation was rejected by the order Annx.8 dated 2nd June, 1987. It was mentioned in this order dated 2nd June, 1987, that there was no reason to expunge the remarks conveyed vide letter dated 9th January, 1987. The petitioner has alleged that there was no complaint against him and the remarks had been recorded against him at the instance of respondent No. 4 who got annoyed from the petitioner because the petitioner failed to provide employment as Class IV employees to the persons who were desired to be employed by respondent No. 4. The petitioner has alleged that 8 persons in whom respondent No. 4 was interested were not even eligible. Moreover the appointments could be made on the basis of the recommendation of the selection committee. The petitioner has submitted that he unnecessarily suffered the wreth of respondent No. 4 and these remarks were recorded in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report at the instance of respondent No. 4. Thus the Collector Shri Ganpat Ram Yadav IAS has been arrayed as respondent No. 4 by name and despite service he (i.e. respondent No. 4) has not ventured to deny the allegations levelled by the petitioner and no reply or counter has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. The petitioner has placed on record the documents Annexures 5, 6, 7, 20 and 21 which show that during this very period 1985-86 his work has been commended and appreciation letters/certificates have been issued. The petitioner has placed on record the documents Annexures 5, 6, 7, 20 and 21 which show that during this very period 1985-86 his work has been commended and appreciation letters/certificates have been issued. It appears from the record that when the petitioner submitted a representation against the adverse remarks the comments of respondent No. 4 were called for and in these comments respondent No. 4 held out that the adverse remarks were not in relation to the good work and performance of the petitioner but were with regard to irregularities committed by him in the matter of appointment and that there was no inconsistency between the contents of the petitioner's representation and the adverse remarks because he had received complaints regarding his work and that he had also apprised the petitioner of the same though orally. Thus it is clear that the very basis of the adverse remarks was the alleged irregularities in the matter of giving appointment to Class-IV employees. Thus the correctness of the adverse remarks has to be examined on the basis whether any irregularity was committed by the petitioner in the matter of giving appointments as Class IV employees. The petitioner has stated that the appointments were made by the duly constituted selection committee and he was only one of the members of the said committee. The proceedings of the selection committee have already been placed on record as Annexure/22 and it is clear that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for irregular appointment even if it was made because he had only acted on the recommendations of the selection committee more particularly when the petitioner has alleged that respondent No. 4 got annoyed from the petitioner because the persons of the choice of respondent No. 4 had not been included in the select list by the Selection Committee of which he was one of the Members. The petitioner's case has not been controverted by respondent No. 4 despite service although it appears from the contents of document Annx. 2 that at the stage of making his representation the petitioner had not set up any case against respondent No. 4 in the representation and therefore the plea that the remarks have been recorded out of basis because of the annoyance of respondent No. 4 cannot be sustained and it appears to be an after-thought. 2 that at the stage of making his representation the petitioner had not set up any case against respondent No. 4 in the representation and therefore the plea that the remarks have been recorded out of basis because of the annoyance of respondent No. 4 cannot be sustained and it appears to be an after-thought. It appears that when the petitioner might have come to know about the contents of Annexure/10 that the comments were sent by the Collector against the petitioner's representation the petitioner also set up the case of bias annoyance and mala fide against respondent No. 4. Be that as it may I find that there was no material for recording the adverse remarks in question against the petitioner and no material has been placed even before this Court except the bald allegations that the petitioner had committed some irregularities in giving appointments to Class IV employees. So far as this matter is concerned it stands explained that the appointments were made on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Not a single document has been placed on record nor the nature of the complaint has been disclosed. It appears that except the complaint about the irregularities in appointments that too appears to be the impression of respondent No. 4 without any written complaint there was nothing against the petitioner and even if any complaint was there the same was never investigated by any authority and hence there is no basis for suspecting him in relation to the complaint about his work moreover the matter relating to the appointments to Class IV employees as a matter of fact proper up in the month of March 1986 i.e. end of the year 1986 whereas the remarks relate to the whole of the period 1985-86 and looking to the facts and circumstances and the various documents by which the petitioner's performance is manifest it cannot be said that the officer who gave the remarks regarding the complaints and the general reputation of the petitioner as not good was justified in giving these remarks. The reputation of an officer cannot be commented upon adversely in such a cursory manner as has been done in the instant case and such remarks which are absolutely vague and without any material forming the requisite opinion cannot be sustained. The reputation of an officer cannot be commented upon adversely in such a cursory manner as has been done in the instant case and such remarks which are absolutely vague and without any material forming the requisite opinion cannot be sustained. The last part of the remark that the petitioner was not yet fit for promotion is wholly without competence inasmuch as whether a person is fit for promotion or not is hardly a subject-matter of Reporting/Reviewing Officer for Annual Performance Appraisal Report. The petitioner is holding the post-graduate degree in Ayurveda. According to the scheme of the Rules even the appointing authority cannot straightway comment upon the fitness or otherwise of an officer for promotion unless the petitioner is held to be unsuitable by an expert body like Departmental Promotion Committee constituted under the scheme of the rules. 4. I find that this part of the remarks as a matter of fact amounts to surprising the function of the DPC and appointing authority. The remarks 'not yet fit for promotion' are normally beyond the scope of Annual Performance Appraisal Report. Since I have come to the conclusion that there was no material to form the opinion for giving these adverse remarks against the petitioner the impugned communication Annexure/1 dated 9th January 1987 and rejection of the representation of the petitioner Annexure/8 dated 2nd June, 1987 are quashed and set aside and the adverse remarks recorded against the petitioner in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report 1985-86 are hereby expunged as if the same were never recorded in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report. 5. Since the writ petition succeeds on the aforesaid ground alone I do not consider it necessary to go into other points urged on behalf of the petitioner. 6. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above with all consequential benefits which may ensure in his favour in view of the expunction of the adverse remarks.Petition allowed. *******