JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the adverse remarks, communicated to him vide order dated 12.02.1997(Annexure-1), for the year 1994 when he was posted as Special Judge, SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dausa. Following were the adverse remarks:- "Disposal of work is not adequate. Below average Officer." 3. Petitioner filed a representation to expunge the above adverse remarks for the year 1994, which was considered and rejected and the same was communicated to petitioner vide order dated 05.06.1999 (Annexure-14). Thereafter, petitioner preferred a review petition, which was also considered and rejected and the same was communicated to petitioner vide order dated 31.01.2000 (Annexure-16). Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 4. Petitioner in his writ petition averred that record of petitioner, throughout his service career, was excellent and respondent No.2 deliberately and malafidely gave this adverse remark against him in the year 1994. He submitted that he has impleaded respondent No.2 as party in his personal capacity. He also submitted that no proper infrastructure was provided at the relevant time in the Court concerned, therefore, his disposal of work was not adequate. It is also averred that no reasons have been assigned for rejecting the representation as well as review petition of petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that Annexure-14 and 16, dated 05.06.1999 and 31.01.2000 respectively, may be quashed and set aside. 5. Respondent No.1, in its reply to writ petition, has mentioned that allegation against Mr. M.K. Jain, District & Sessions Judge, is without factual foundation as the adverse remarks in the APAR for the year 1994, communicated to petitioner, were not given by Mr. M.K. Jain, but the same were given by the then Hon'ble Inspecting Judge, after perusal of his record and work performance, as his disposal of work in the year 1994 was only 36%. Other averments made in the writ petition were also denied. 6. A rejoinder to reply was also filed, wherein the facts mentioned in the writ petition, were reiterated. Thereafter, an additional affidavit was also filed on behalf of respondent No.1, giving out the details of work disposal of petitioner in the year 1994. Petitioner also filed a counter affidavit to the additional affidavit filed by the respondent No.1, denying the averments made in the additional affidavit. 7. Mr. Thereafter, an additional affidavit was also filed on behalf of respondent No.1, giving out the details of work disposal of petitioner in the year 1994. Petitioner also filed a counter affidavit to the additional affidavit filed by the respondent No.1, denying the averments made in the additional affidavit. 7. Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, submitted that from the orders dated 05.06.1999 and 31.01.2000, Annexure-14 and 16 respectively, it is clear that no reason whatsoever has been assigned for rejecting the representation as well as review petition of petitioner. He further submitted that so far as adverse remarks i.e. below average, given in the APAR of petitioner in the year 1994 by the District Judge is concerned, the same was deliberate and due to malafide action on the part of the District Judge. He also submitted that he has impleaded Mr. M.K. Jain, the then District Judge, as party/respondent No.2 in the writ petition, who has not filed any reply to writ petition. He also clarified the position as to why work disposal of petitioner was 36% only, by referring the pleading/averments made in the writ petition. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Virendra Lodha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Nitish Bagri, appearing on behalf of respondents, submitted that the writ petition was filed on the basis of wrong assumption and apprehension that Mr. M.K. Jain, the then District Judge, was not happy with the petitioner. He might have recorded the adverse remarks against petitioner, therefore, he impleaded Mr. M.K. Jain as party/respondent No.2 in the writ petition. He submitted that from the original record i.e. APAR of petitioner for the year 1994, it is clear that Mr. M.K. Jain, had not filled his APAR as "below average", but the said remarks were given/recorded by the then Hon'ble Inspecting Judge. He, therefore, submitted that facts mentioned in the writ petition, are not correct. He also submitted that it is wrong to say on the part of petitioner that throughout service career of petitioner, his record was excellent. He referred the original record of petitioner to show the APAR of petitioner of the years 1991 to 1993 and 1995 and 1996 also. He submitted that petitioner was given warning in the year 1991 to improve the disposal. In the APAR of 1992, it was recorded that his work is satisfactory. He referred the original record of petitioner to show the APAR of petitioner of the years 1991 to 1993 and 1995 and 1996 also. He submitted that petitioner was given warning in the year 1991 to improve the disposal. In the APAR of 1992, it was recorded that his work is satisfactory. In the APAR of 1993, it was recorded that petitioner is a good Officer. APAR of the year 1995 of petitioner was that he is below average, whereas in the APAR of 1996, advisory remarks were recorded against the petitioner to improve the work. 9. Learned counsel for respondents also referred the averments made in the reply to writ petition as well as additional affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent No.1. He also submitted that review petition of petitioner was considered by a Committee consisting of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court and after careful scrutiny of the entire record, the case of petitioner was considered but there was nothing in the review petition, therefore, the same was rightly rejected. He, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same be dismissed as such. 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders as well as other documents available on record. 11. The present writ petition relates to adverse remarks made in the APAR of the year 1994, communicated to petitioner, to the effect that his disposal of work is not adequate and he is a below average Officer. The petitioner submitted a representation, which was considered and rejected by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice. Thereafter, petitioner preferred a review petition, which was also considered and rejected. The matter of petitioner was, therefore, examined twice on administrative side. It is relevant to mention that in the year 1995, the grading of petitioner was below average, which was recorded by other District Judge. In the year 1994, Mr. M.K. Jain was the District Judge of Dausa, whereas in the year 1995 Mr. M.K. Jain was not the District Judge, but some other District Judge was posted there, who graded the petitioner as 'below average'. From the APARs' of the years 1991 to 1993, it appears that record of petitioner was not excellent, as alleged/submitted by the petitioner. 12. The contention of the petitioner that on account of bias, Mr. M.K. Jain was not the District Judge, but some other District Judge was posted there, who graded the petitioner as 'below average'. From the APARs' of the years 1991 to 1993, it appears that record of petitioner was not excellent, as alleged/submitted by the petitioner. 12. The contention of the petitioner that on account of bias, Mr. M.K. Jain, the then District Judge, has given average remarks and the work standard at Dausa could not be achieved because of infrastructure and staff unavailability, is also not sustainable because in the year 1994 itself, from 01.01.1994 to 31.05.1994 also, when the petitioner was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, his work was much below the standard prescribed and was also rated as average for the period. 13. During the course of arguments, original APARs' of petitioner were placed for perusal of this Court. We have examined the earlier as well as later APARs' of petitioner. From the APAR of the year 1995, it is clear that it was filled by another District Judge than Mr. M.K. Jain. It is also factually correct that in the year 1994, the then District Judge graded the petitioner as 'average', whereas the then Hon'ble Inspecting Judge graded him as 'below average'. The writ petition has been filed on the pretext that the writ petitioner was graded as below average by Mr. M.K. Jain, the then District Judge, whereas it was not found to be correct after perusal of the record. The matter has already been examined by way of representation of petitioner and thereafter by way of review petition, on administrative side, twice. 14. It is relevant to mention that petitioner has not been deprived of any due benefit accrued to him due to this adverse remark of the year 1994. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for petitioner, fairly and frankly admitted that due to this adverse remark of the year 1994, the petitioner's case has not been adversely affected, in any manner.14A. It is also relevant to mention that in the year 1995 also, petitioner was graded as 'average' by another District Judge, but he was graded as "below average" by the then Hon'ble Inspecting Judge. The adverse APAR of the year 1995 was also communicated to petitioner, but the same was not challenged by him, as admitted by the learned counsel for petitioner also, during the course of arguments.14B. The adverse APAR of the year 1995 was also communicated to petitioner, but the same was not challenged by him, as admitted by the learned counsel for petitioner also, during the course of arguments.14B. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and record of the case, we are satisfied that the representation as well as review petition of petitioner, against his adverse APAR of the year 1994, were rightly rejected. We find no justified/valid reason to interfere in the impugned orders. 15. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. 16. In view of above, Stay Application No.1751/2000 also stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******