JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner while working as Superintending Engineer was communicated with four adverse entries for the year 1991-. 92 vide letter dated 3rd January, 1995. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 7.2.1995 before the Authorities against the adverse entries in APAR for the year 1991-92. The respondents vide letter dated 13.8.1996 informed the petitioner that after considering his representation, the State Government has decided to expunge two adverse entries for the year 1991-92. However, the other entries will remain as the same. 2. A Departmental Promotion Committee was convened for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer (Mechanical) on 27/28th of September, 1996. Petitioner filed the above writ petition before this Court on 3rd of October, 1996. This Court, vide interim order dated 8.10.1996 issued directions that promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer (Mechanical) of Public Health and Engineering Department shall not be made on the basis of recommendations of the D.P.C. convened on 27/28th of September, 1996 for a period of three weeks. However, the interim order was continued thereafter. 3. In the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that adverse entries as retained by the State Government vide letter dated 13.8.1996 may be expunged and further, respondents may be directed not to pass any order in pursuance of the recommendations of the D.P.C. convened on 27/28th of September, 1996 and to re-convene the D.P.C. after deciding the submissions made by the petitioner in his notice dated 16.9.1996. 4. On receiving the notice, the respondents have filed a reply and have raised certain preliminary objections a part from submitting reply on merits as well. A rejoinder thereafter, has also been filed by the petitioner. 5. Mr. S.B. Mathur, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argue( that the adverse entries for the year 1991-92 were communicated after more than three years and thus, are liable to be expunged only on this ground. HE has further submitted that the remarks, as retained in communication date( 13.8.1996 are only advisory in nature and, as such, cannot be used agains the petitioner while considering his case for promotion to the post o Additional Chief Engineer (Mechanical). 6. He has further submitted that once the adverse entries No. 3 and 4 having been expunged, the entry No. 2 should deemed to have expunged automatically and there will be no relevance for the same. The main thrust of submission of Mr. 6. He has further submitted that once the adverse entries No. 3 and 4 having been expunged, the entry No. 2 should deemed to have expunged automatically and there will be no relevance for the same. The main thrust of submission of Mr. Mathur is that the adverse entries were made at the instance of Mr. B.K. Gupta, the then Additional Chief Engineer, who was prejudiced with the petitioner on various grounds. 7. He has also submitted that so far as adverse entry in regard to petitioner having failed to achieve revenue targets particularly and other targets generally is concerned, petitioner was working only on the post of Superintending Engineer and targets are fixed for Executive Engineers. In such circumstances, petitioner cannot be held responsible for not achieving the targets. Contention of Mr. Mathur is that during the relevant year the petitioner remained out for four months for some training. Even otherwise, so far as achieving target is concerned, the targets are achieved at the end of the Financial Year. Whole duration of the period should not have been counted for the same so as to put any adverse remark against the petitioner. 8. Mr. Mathur has contended that since adverse remarks are only advisory in nature and having been made mala-fidely against the petitioner, the same should be ignored and the petitioner be considered for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer (Mechanical). Mr. Mathur has also submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner has not been decided properly and the impugned order dated 13.8.1996 is not a speaking order. 9. Mr. Mathur has relied upon judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra and another, reported in 1997 (4) SCC 7 , State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa, IPS, Inspector General of Police and another, reported in 1987 (2) SCC 602 and judgment of this Court in the case of Shambhu Singh Meena and 4 others, v. The State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1992 (2) WLC 571 ; Dr. Gyan Chand Jain v. State of Rajasthan and another, reported in 1993(1) WLC 526 . 10. On the other hand, Mr. Manish Bhandari, counsel for the respondents, has submitted that looking to the prayer made by the petitioner in his writ petition, the writ petition itself is pre-mature in so far as result of the D.PC. Gyan Chand Jain v. State of Rajasthan and another, reported in 1993(1) WLC 526 . 10. On the other hand, Mr. Manish Bhandari, counsel for the respondents, has submitted that looking to the prayer made by the petitioner in his writ petition, the writ petition itself is pre-mature in so far as result of the D.PC. made on 27/28th of September, 1996 for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Engineer (Mechanical) has not been opened and in case any orders are passed in pursuance to the recommendations of the D.P.C., as referred to above, any order prejudicial to the petitioner is passed, the petitioner has always a remedy by way of filing an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. 11. In case the petitioner is superseded he can challenge the order before the Tribunal and it is open for the Tribunal to consider the relevant adverse entries after calling for the entire record from the department. The tribunal, as an appellate Court, can always issue appropriate directions to the department accordingly in view of Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Tayyab All v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1988 (2) RLR page 1. Submission of Mr. Bhandari is that this Court under its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction cannot scrutinise the entire record so far as adverse entries are concerned and make its own assessment for the relevant year. 12. Mr. Bhandari has further submitted that the petitioner has levelled serious allegations against Shri B.K. Gupta, the then Additional Chief Engineer. Main challenge to the adverse remarks for the year 1991-92 is on the ground of mala-fides. However, Mr. B.K. Gupta has not been impleaded as party to the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Mr. Bhandari has also submitted that Mr. B.K. Gupta was only Reporting Officer. However, in the present case, the Divisional Commissioner was the Reviewing Authority and he has also agreed with the remarks made by the Reporting Officer, whereas, no malafides have been alleged against the concerned Divisional Commissioner. The allegation levelled by the petitioner against Mr. B.K. Gupta are wholly unjustified and have no basis at all. 13. It has further been contended by Mr. Bhandari that in view of past entries made in the service record of the petitioner, the entries made for the year 1991-92 were justified. The allegation levelled by the petitioner against Mr. B.K. Gupta are wholly unjustified and have no basis at all. 13. It has further been contended by Mr. Bhandari that in view of past entries made in the service record of the petitioner, the entries made for the year 1991-92 were justified. Since it is subjective assessment of the Reporting Officer as well as the Reviewing Officer on the basis of material available on record, this Court should not interfere with such matters under its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. Mr. Bhandari relied upon judgment of Apex Court in the case of Anil Katiyar (Mrs.} v. Union of India and others, reported in 1997 (1) SCC page 280 and also Bharat Ram Meena v. Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur and others, reported in 1997 (3) SCC 233 . 14. In rejoinder, Mr. Mathur, counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating his earlier submissions, submitted that the petitioner cannot challenge his adverse entries before the Service Tribunal directly because it is not covered by the definition of service matter as enumerated in Clause-F of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service matters Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1976. He has also placed reliance on Tayyab Ali's case in this regard. 15. I have carefully gone through the entire material on record and have also considered the rival submissions made at the bar. I have also carefully gone through the judgments, cited by counsel for both sides. 16. Without going into the merits of the case, in my opinion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of being pre-mature and also on the ground of alternative remedy. 17. In Tayyab Ali's case, the Full Bench of this Court has clearly held that though such an adverse entry or an order rejecting the representation against the same by itself is not appealable to the Tribunal, yet the correctness thereof can be assailed by the Government Servant while challenging any consequent order based on or influenced by it relating to any of the matters specified in the several sub-clauses of clause (f) of Section 2; and in that event the limitation for appeal to the Tribunal will be reckoned, from the date of the consequent order and not the date of the adverse entry, or the order rejecting the representation against it. 18. 18. Before' making the above observations the Court also observed that an adverse entry in the APAR of a Government Servant is significant to determine the future course of the service career. Such an adverse entry or rejection of representation against it by itself is not an order denying or varying and service condition-to the disadvantage of a Government Servant even though the consequence thereof in future may be so. Such an adverse entry providing the basis or foundation for the subsequent adverse order relating to a condition of service can always be assailed when the consequent order made to the Government Servant's detriment is challenged before the Tribunal. Such an adverse entry by itself does not visit the Government Servant with any immediate denial or variation of any service condition to his disadvantage. 19. The Court held that though an adverse entry in the APAR or an order rejecting the representation against the same is not included within the ambit of sub-clause (v) of Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Act and thus, no appeal lies before the Trubunal, however, the correctness of such adverse entry can always be assailed by the Government Servant by challenging any consequent order passed or on influenced by it: 20. Even otherwise, making of adverse entries in the service record is purely., subjective assessment of the Reporting Officer as well as the Reviewing Officer, which can be made on the basis of record pertaining to the relevant period. This Court under its writ jurisdiction cannot go into the entire record and give its own assessment. There is an appellate Tribunal duly constituted under a statute .% The Tribunal as an Appellate Authority has powers for calling the entire record, scrutinise the whole matter and issue appropriate orders. In the case of Bharat Ram Meena (supra) the Apex Court has also clearly held that such matters are not open to judicial review and the High Court under Article 226 has rightly declined to interfere with the matter of ACRs in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. 21. Though, much emphasis has been made on malafides against Mr. B.K. Gupta, the then Additional Chief Engineer. However, in absence of Mr. 21. Though, much emphasis has been made on malafides against Mr. B.K. Gupta, the then Additional Chief Engineer. However, in absence of Mr. B.K. Gupta being impleaded as party to the writ petition no comments can be made on the allegations made against him, but since I have already observed, that without going into the merits, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, no further observations are required to be made on this ground. 22. The D.P.C. has already been convened in. September, 1996. However,' in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the recommendations could not be opened. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has not been considered by the DPC. As and- when any order is passed on the recommendations of the DPC and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same he can always challenge .that order by way of filing an appeal before the Tribunal in accordance with law. 23. Accordingly, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******