JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the adverse remarks made in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the petitioner for the year 1988-89. 2. The petitioner joined the Government service as Civil Assistant Surgeon on 24.4.74. He was promoted as Senior Medical Officer w.e.f. 1.10.86. He was subsequently redesignated as Junior Specialist in Orthopaedics on the basis of his qualifications. For this purpose the Government passed order dated 30th April 1988 (Ex. 1). He was posted as Junior Specialist (Orthopaedics) in the office of the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Tonk. 3. A communication dated 22.8.90 was served on the petitioner and he was conveyed with the adverse remarks in his annual performance appraisal report for the year 1988-89. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 9.8.90 which was forwarded to the Government by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Tonk. This representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Government as would appear from the letter dated, 11.4.91 (Ex. 12). In its communication, the Government has observed that after consulting the Reporting/Reviewing Officer, the Government has not found any reason to expunge the adverse entries. 4. The petitioner has stated that during period of 1988-89 he had completely devoted himself in the discharge of his duties as Junior Specialist (Orthopaedics) and during his entire period of posting at Tonk he had motivated a number of sterilisation cases. He has also referred to a Demi-Official letter written by the District Magistrate Tonk, dated, 16.5.87 to the Secretary, Medical and Health Department indicating the circumstances under which it was not possible to achieve the targets of Family Welfare Programme in the district of Tonk. The petitioner's case is that none of the Junior Specialists working in Tonk district was in a position to make a substantial contribution towards motivation and sterilisation. He has referred to a certificate dated, 12.7.91 by the Medical Officer Incharge F.P. Scheme Tonk showing that six junior Specialists posted in the district had not made any contribution during 1988-89. The case of the petitioner is that the remark had been made arbitrarily and the Government has not at all applied its mind while considering his representation. It has singled out the petitioner in making adverse remarks in his annual performance appraisal reports. 5. Shri B.L. Samdaria, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that . The case of the petitioner is that the remark had been made arbitrarily and the Government has not at all applied its mind while considering his representation. It has singled out the petitioner in making adverse remarks in his annual performance appraisal reports. 5. Shri B.L. Samdaria, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that . the adverse remarks have been made in the annual performance appraisal report of the petitioner without application of mind. The Government has not at all considered the actual work done by the petitioner. The petitioner has been singled out for the adverse entries although other Junior Specialists have also failed to fulfil the targets regarding the Family Planning Programme. Shri Samdaria argued that during his earlier posting the petitioner had achieved his targets. But having regard to the peculiar population of the city of Tonk, it could not have been possible for any officer to fulfil the targets. By making a reference to Ex. 11 Shri Samdaria argued that the other Junior Specialists had failed to achieve the targets and there was little reason for making the adverse remarks in the annual performance appraisal report of the petitioner alone and particularly even when the District Magistrate had expressed serious difficulties in motivating the Muslim population to adopt methods of family planning. 6. Shri Parihar, learned Additional Government Advocate, has argued that the adverse remarks had been made in the annual performance appraisal report of the petitioner having regard to the facts which have been brought to the notice of the government. It has been found that as a matter of fact, the petitioner has failed to fulfil his obligation in respect of the Family Planning Programme. The Government has considered the representation submitted by the petitioner objectively and then came to the conclusion that there was no warrant for expunging adverse remarks. 7. The facts which have been disclosed in the writ petition and which have remained uncontroverted, show that the petitioner's work has been adversely commented upon only regarding the motivation and sterilisation cases in relation to Family Planning Programme. For the year 1975, the petitioner was given commendation certificates on Republic Day in appreciation of his work during Family Planning Programme undertaken in the fortnight of December, 1975. Similar commendation certificate was given in the year 1976-77 and 1983-84. The last certificate was given by the department itself. A perusal of Ex. For the year 1975, the petitioner was given commendation certificates on Republic Day in appreciation of his work during Family Planning Programme undertaken in the fortnight of December, 1975. Similar commendation certificate was given in the year 1976-77 and 1983-84. The last certificate was given by the department itself. A perusal of Ex. 10 letter written by the District Magistrate, Tonk, shows that the authorities of the Medical and Health Department had been made aware of the difficulties felt by the district authorities in achieving the targets of family planning. The District Magistrate had expressed that it will take another decade before the Muslims may get really motivated and that the religious leaders of the population were against the family planning programme. The District Magistrate had specifically requested for reduction of the target. Ex. 11 shows that only one Dr. Anoop Verma was able to motivate one case of sterilisation. Others could not motivate a single case for sterilisation. This being the fact situation there was little justification for applying the theory of pick and choose in the making of adverse entry in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the petitioner alone. Apparently, the authorities of the Medical and Health Department had themselves realised the peculiar position of Tonk district and had therefore, refrained from making adverse remarks against other Medical Officers (Junior Specialists) for their alleged failure to achieve the targets. It has also not been shown to the Court that any particular targets had been fixed for the Junior Specialists in respect of the Family Planning Programme (Sterilisation Cases). Even if targets had been fixed and there might have been a literal failure for achieving those targets, there was little justification for ignoring the realities while making adverse remarks and even though, the adverse remarks cannot be treated as penalty imposed on the Government servant on the basis of disciplinary action, effect of the adverse remarks on the career of the Government servant is much more than even a minor penalty. The lethal effect of the adverse remarks can be felt only when a man is superseded on the basis of adverse entries in the annual performance appraisal reports. 8. The Circular issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms on 30.3.76 indicates the importance of the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports. The lethal effect of the adverse remarks can be felt only when a man is superseded on the basis of adverse entries in the annual performance appraisal reports. 8. The Circular issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms on 30.3.76 indicates the importance of the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports. In para-2 of the Circular it has been stated as under:- "Importance of Annual Performance Appraisal Report:- "Since the Government have accepted the principle that confirmation, crossing of Efficiency Bar, promotion, grant of pensionary benefits etc. should be based on the assessment of the Annual Performance Appraisal Report, this matter is of greatest importance for the efficiency and the morale of the service. It is in the interest of the Government not less than the employees, the value of proper system of performance appraisal is recognised by all concerned." 9. In Union of India v. E.G. Lambudri ( 1991 (3) S.C.C. 38 ) their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that, "Although, it is not necessary for the competent authority to indicate reasons for rejecting the representation of a Government servant against the adverse remarks, but it is no licence to act arbitrarily. The competent authority must act in a fair and just manner. It is required to consider the questions raised by the Government servant and examine the same in the light of the comments made by the officer awarding adverse entries and the Officer counter-signing the same. The court has further held that, although the rejection of the representation made after its consideration in a fair and just manner is not rendered illegal merely on the ground of absence of reasons, it does not mean that the administrative authority is at liberty to pass any order without there being any reason for the same. If the decision of rejection of representation is challenged before the court, the competent authority is free to place material before the court to show justification for rejection of the representation." 10. In the present case, apart from the materials which have come on record in the form of various documents placed by the petitioner it is evident that the petitioner did make a detailed representation against the adverse remarks and pointed out that he had performed his duties well. In the present case, apart from the materials which have come on record in the form of various documents placed by the petitioner it is evident that the petitioner did make a detailed representation against the adverse remarks and pointed out that he had performed his duties well. No targets had been fixed for motivation of sterilisation cases and that between 1983 to 1988 he had motivated 22 sterilisation cases and had worked as Assistant Surgeon in the Laproscopy team. The respondents have not been able to show as to in what manner the representation made by the petitioner was considered by the government; what weightage was given to the reasons specified by the District Magistrate regarding the slow progress of Family Planning Programme and at the same time, the respondents have failed to produce any material before the court to justify the making of adverse remarks in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the petitioner while at the same time, no such remarks have been made in the APARs of other similarly situated persons, although they had not motivated any case for sterlisation. The failure of the Government to show a fair and just consideration of the representation and its failure to offer any explanation for making adverse entry in the APAR of the petitioner and not in the APARs of the similarly situated Doctors leads to an inference that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and unjustly in making adverse remarks in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the petitioner. The petitioner has clearly been subjected to discriminatory treatment and there is no rationale or justification for this discrimination qua the petitioner. 11. On the basis of the above discussion, this writ petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. Adverse remarks made in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the petitioner for the year 1988-89 are declared arbitrary and are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. Costs made easy.Petition Allowed. *******