Honble RAVANI, CJ. – Respondent No. 1, who is the affected party, is served. Other respondents are not necessary parties and are ordered to be deleted. (2). The appellant is the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. Respondent No. 1 filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2028/1991 praying that adverse remarks made in his service book for the period commencing from January 10, 1990 to May 30, 1990 be expugned. The adverse remarks are as follows :– Integrity of the Officer : Debatable. No. complaint in writing. General remarks : He has a tendency to mix freely with public, which should be curbed. (3). The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the adverse remarks were required to be expunged. The learned single Judge passed the following order :– ``Consequently, I allow the writ petition, expunge the adverse remarks conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 5.9.1992 (Ann. 15), the order dated 3.12.1992 (Ann. 17), by which the representation of the petitioner was rejected and the order dated 12.3.1993 (marked Ann. 19), by which the Review Application was rejected, are set aside and the respondent No.1 in directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in R.H.J.S. cadre as early as possible and in case the petitioner is found fit for the said cadre, he should be promoted retrospectively from the date his juniors were promoted in Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Cadre with all consequential benefits including seniority. After passing the aforesaid order, the learned Single Judge made further observations and gave directions as under :– ``Before parting with the judgment, I want to observed that as the petitioner has been denied Senior Scale and Selection Scale and has been put to harassment and humiliation for a long time on account of inaction/negligence of the Registry, I deem it proper to direct the respondent No.1 to hold an enquiry and fix the responsibility of officer/official. The respondent No.1 is further directed to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- of this petition to the petitioner and the same be recovered from the officer/official who is found negligent in the enquiry. (4). With utmost respect, it is difficult to agree with the aforesaid observa- tions and direction given by the learned Single Judge. The respondent No.1 is further directed to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- of this petition to the petitioner and the same be recovered from the officer/official who is found negligent in the enquiry. (4). With utmost respect, it is difficult to agree with the aforesaid observa- tions and direction given by the learned Single Judge. As far as responsibility of the Registry of the High Court is concerned, it is observed by the learned Single Judge that an officer had to suffer ``on account of inaction/negligence of the Registry. Where the High Court is a party, one aspect needs to be borne in mind. In such litigations, as far as High Court is concerned, no person is individually affected. In the ultimate analysis, what suffers is the public interest. The decisions of the Registry are collective and institutional decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals. In this connection, the following observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of G. Ramegowda vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore (1), may be re- ferred :– ``In litigations to which Government is a party there is yet another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored. If appeals brought by Government are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected; but what, in the ultimate analysis, suffers is public interest. The decisions of Government are collective and institutional decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals. (5). As far as the Registry of the High Court is concerned, the same approach, as adverted to by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision is required to be adopted. Just as in the case of government offices, in the case of High Court Registry also, a fair amount of latitude is required to be given. Unless it is shown that there was culpable and deliberate negligence, ordinarily, no action should be ordered to be taken on judicial side. Simply because there may be some delay or some irregularity in considering the case of an officer, it would not be proper to impute deliberate negligence or motivated inaction to any officer of the Registry of the High Court. In such an impersonal machinery, some delay on account of non deliberate negligence or inaction is likely to take place. Simply because there may be some delay or some irregularity in considering the case of an officer, it would not be proper to impute deliberate negligence or motivated inaction to any officer of the Registry of the High Court. In such an impersonal machinery, some delay on account of non deliberate negligence or inaction is likely to take place. If the officers of the High Court Registry are required to work under the specter of fear of being subjected to strictures, in judicial proceedings and are to be subjected to departmental enquiry, nobody may be willing to work on deputation in the Registry of the High Court. In our opinion, some liberal and pragmatic attitude should be adopted while dealing with such cases. (6). Even learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if the aforesaid part of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is reversed and set aside. (7). In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, the order by which the learned Single Judge directed to hold an enquiry and imposed costs of Rs. 2,000/- upon respondent No.1 i.e. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, is reversed and set aside. Rest of the part of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is not disturbed. There shall be no order as to costs. (8). The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.