Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By this petition for writ the adverse remarks entered in Annual Performance Appraisal Report (hereinafter referred to as "APAR") of the petitioner for the year 1990-91 is in question. 2. The Chairman & Managing Director of Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. by a communication dated 30.11.1991 informed the petitioner with regard to adverse entries made in his APAR for the year 1991. The adverse entries so entered reads as under:- "Did nothing to improve the working of the unit inspite of verbal & written communications. Has worked in a routine manner and takes little interest in work. Unsatisfactory." 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by adverse remarks entered in his APAR submitted a representation to the Chairman & Managing Director of the respondent Corporation on 012.1991 and the same was followed by an another representation dated 16.01.1995. The petitioner in the representations referred above explained all the circumstances in which he was working in the year 1990-91 and made a request to expunge the adverse remarks. The Managing Director of the respondent Corporation by a communication dated 09.08.1995 communicated the petitioner the decision to maintain the adverse remarks in the APAR of the year 1990-91. Hence, petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 4. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents justifying the adverse remarks entered in APAR of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed a rejoinder to the reply reiterating the factual and legal position averred in the writ petition. 5. This Court by order dated 29.08.2005 directed the respondents to produce ACRs of the petitioner pertaining to five preceding years and five subsequent years to the year 1990-1991. In compliance of the order dated 29.08.2005 the respondents produced ACRs dossier of the petitioner and also the details with regard to APAR of the petitioner pertaining to five preceding and five subsequent years to the year 1990-91. From the details given by the respondents it appears that for the years 1985-1986 and 1986-1987 the work of the petitioner was treated good and for the years 1987-1988, 1988-1989 and 1989-1990 it was found satisfactory. For the years 1991-1992, 1992-1993, 1993-1994, 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 the work of the petitioner was assessed as very good and for the year 1996-1997 it was assessed as satisfactory. 6. For the years 1991-1992, 1992-1993, 1993-1994, 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 the work of the petitioner was assessed as very good and for the year 1996-1997 it was assessed as satisfactory. 6. From the details narrated above it is apparent that except for the year 1991-1992 the performance of the petitioner was not found bad by the respondents in five preceding and five subsequent years to 1990-1991. From the APAR dossier and other record produced by the respondents for perusal of this Court it is also found that the representation submitted by the petitioner was placed before a competent committee for its consideration which decided to maintain the adverse remarks in APAR of the petitioner by recommending as under:- "Shri Umed Singh for the year 1990-1991 The committee considered the adverse remarks made against Shri Umaid Singh as also his dossier. In view of the fact that no strong case is made out for expunging the remarks, the committee recommended retention of the adverse remarks." 7. In the factual background as above it is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have not considered the representation submitted by the petitioner objectively. 8. Heard the Counsel for the parties. 9. I found merit in the contention of Counsel for the petitioner that the committee considering the representation submitted by the petitioner decided the representation in most casual manner. The finding given by the committee concerned clearly shows that the same is not based on any proper assessment of the working of the petitioner. The committee rejected the representation in most casual manner just by saying that no ground is made out to interfere with the adverse remarks entered in APAR for the year 1990-1991. The committee is required to assess the working of the petitioner afresh and also required to see the justification for entering adverse remarks in APAR of the employee concerned. Such committee is also required to take into consideration the assessment of the working of the employee in immediate preceding and succeeding years. In the present case the committee concerned failed to do so. In view of it I am is of considered opinion that the committee has not considered the representation submitted by the petitioner with proper application of mind. 10. Accordingly the writ petition is worth acceptance, therefore, the same is allowed. In the present case the committee concerned failed to do so. In view of it I am is of considered opinion that the committee has not considered the representation submitted by the petitioner with proper application of mind. 10. Accordingly the writ petition is worth acceptance, therefore, the same is allowed. The competent committee of the respondent Corporation is directed to reconsider the representation submitted by the petitioner giving challenge to the adverse remarks entered in his APAR for the year 1990-1991. The committee while reconsidering the representation shall also take into consideration immediate preceding and subsequent assessment of the performance of the petitioner. It is expected from the respondents to reconsider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date he submits a certified copy of this order to the Managing Director of the Corporation. 11. No order as to costs.