ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. Petitioner, a Lecturer in Mathematics, under the College Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, has preferred this writ petition to assail order/communication dated 1st of September 2010 (Annex.2), Communication dated 27th of February 2012 (Annex.4) and order/communication dated 26th of October 2012 (Annex.8) and has prayed for quashment of these communications/orders. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that at the inception of her service career petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Maths) on temporary basis in Meera Girls College, Udaipur vide order dated 19th of October 1995. It is averred in the petition by the petitioner that right from the threshold of her service career she is discharging her duties with utmost sincerity, diligence and dedication and is having an unblemished service record. As per version of the petitioner, to her utter surprise, she was addressed communication dated 1st of September 2010 (Annex.2), whereby she was conveyed disparaging remarks in her Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the year 2008-09. The author of communication Annex.2 found her performance unsatisfactory under the heads; Output of Work, Leadership Qualities, Analytic Ability, Management Ability, Decision-making ability and Ability to take initiative. The overall evaluation of the adverse remarks, made against the petitioner was that she is an unimpressive personality (simpleton) and poor in performance due to which examination results were also unsatisfactory, i.e. less than 50% in the three question papers. That apart, on many counts, her performance is found wanting with a caustic remark of having frustrated mentality. 3. In response to communication Annex.2, petitioner submitted a detailed reply/representation and pointed out that assessment of her performance is not founded on objective considerations. The petitioner also highlighted in her representation that she has given 100% result in the third paper of third year, excluding the students with short attendance, and overall result of the class was 80.95% and 84.61% in second year class. While referring to the adverse attributes mentioned in communication Annex.2, petitioner made a sincere endeavour to persuade the competent authority to expunge adverse remarks in the APAR with the support of documentary proofs. 4. Be that as it may, the reply/representation of the petitioner remained pending consideration before the competent authority for almost one and half year and finally the same is rejected vide Annex.4 dated 27th of February 2012. In the brief rejection order no reasons as such were assigned. 4. Be that as it may, the reply/representation of the petitioner remained pending consideration before the competent authority for almost one and half year and finally the same is rejected vide Annex.4 dated 27th of February 2012. In the brief rejection order no reasons as such were assigned. Receipt of communication Annex.4 gave a profound shock to the petitioner but she did not give up pursuit of vindicating herself and to get rid of the adverse entries. In order to accomplish her mission, petitioner addressed a letter to the college administration on 13th of September 2012 soliciting certain informations and in response to the same, Principal of the College divulged requisite informations (Annex.6) to her on 15th of September 2012. 5. The informations (Annex.6), received by the petitioner from college administration, clarified the position that in fact no endeavour was made for objective assessment of her performance, therefore, in these circumstances petitioner once again submitted a representation (Annex.7) before the competent authority on 25th of September 2012 but that effort of the petitioner also proved abortive and vide communication dated 26th of October 2012 (Annex.8) her prayer is declined by citing the reason that there is no provision for appeal/review in the matter. Essentially, the petitioner has laid challenge to the impugned communications on the ground that adverse remarks in her APAR for the year 2008-09 are not founded on objective assessment and entire basis of the adverse remarks are certain facts which are not at all relevant and germane to the matter. 6. On behalf of the second respondent, it is submitted in the reply that on account of adverse remarks in APAR none of the rights of petitioner much less fundamental rights are infringed. It is also averred in the return by the second respondent that adverse entries in the APARs of an individual is not a service matter within the four corners of clause (f) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 and therefore no interference with the impugned orders is called for. 7. After receiving reply to the writ petition, petitioner submitted subsequent pleadings and reiterated all the facts, which were averred in the writ petition for substantiating her case. 8. The petition came up before the Court on 29th of September 2014 and same is admitted. 7. After receiving reply to the writ petition, petitioner submitted subsequent pleadings and reiterated all the facts, which were averred in the writ petition for substantiating her case. 8. The petition came up before the Court on 29th of September 2014 and same is admitted. After service of notice on the respondents, on 12th of April 2016, the Court was pleased to direct the respondents to produce service record of the petitioner for perusal. In adherence to the said order, learned counsel for the respondents has produced service record of the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nikhil Dungawat submits that object of APAR is to maintain or improve the present standard of public life and therefore it is necessary for the Reporting Officer to write confidential reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately in a constructive manner. Learned counsel would contend that instant case is a glaring example wherein adverse remarks are made in the APARs of the petitioner without any objective considerations and therefore the impugned remarks, which are based on mere ipse dixit of the Reporting Officer, cannot be sustained. Mr. Dungawat has contended that, on the face of it, impugned orders/communications are contrary to communication Annex.6 and consequently vulnerability of all these orders is writ large. Mr. Dungawat has argued that at the threshold Reporting Officer has conveyed adverse remarks to the petitioner without any basis and objective assessment of the performance of petitioner and later on the reviewing authority has also not cared to examine the matter by passing an unreasoned rejection order. 10. With all these submissions, learned counsel has urged that impugned adverse remarks and all subsequent communications, affirming the same, merit annulment. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Dr. Khushal Singh Gehlot v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2494/2005), decided on 28th of April 2011. 11. Per contra, Ms. Kusum Rao, learned Addl. Government Counsel, submits that the adverse remarks have been rightly communicated to the petitioner and same cannot be made the subject matter of judicial review in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that in absence of infraction of any of the legal rights much less fundamental rights of the petitioner, no indulgence can be granted to her in the matter. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that in absence of infraction of any of the legal rights much less fundamental rights of the petitioner, no indulgence can be granted to her in the matter. 12. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and perused the entire materials available on record as well as service record of the petitioner, which is produced by learned counsel for the respondents. 13. Before I proceed to examine the afflictions of the petitioner, I have thoroughly scanned her service record. Upon perusal of the service record of petitioner, it has come to the fore that during her entire service career, barring the impugned adverse entries for the year 2008-09, her performance was found to be good/very good. It is also explicit from service book that petitioner was never conveyed any adverse remarks/downgrading remarks in her APARs except the impugned adverse remarks. The entries of overall assessment made in her APARs from 1997-98 to February 2015 are reproduced as infra: Period Overall Assessment 1996-97 Good 1997-98 (16.10.97 to June 1998) Very Good 14.07.1998 to 30.06.99 Very Good 15.07.1999 to 6.05.200 Very Good 01.07.2000 to 30.06.2001 Good July 2001 to June 2002 Good 01.07.2002 to 30.06.2003 Very Good 01.07.2003 to 30.06.2004 Very Good 01.07.2004 to 30.06.2005 Very Good 01.07.2005 to 07.12.2005 Outstanding 19.12.2005 to 30.06.2006 Very Good 01.07.2006 to 30.06.2007 Very Good 08.11.2007 to 31.05.2008 Very Good 04.07.2008 to 30.06.2009 - 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009 - 26.10.2009 to 16.02.2010 Satisfactory 17.02.2010 to 30.06.2010 Satisfactory 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011 Satisfactory 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2012 Satisfactory 01.07.2014 to 06.02.2015 Very Good 14. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the Reporting Officer has not made sincere endeavour to evaluate the performance of petitioner for the year 2008-09. It is not in dispute that though the assessment of performance of every Govt. servant is very important so that the concerned Govt. servant can be apprised about his defects and shortcomings which could affect his career advancement in the long run. Therefore, the performance appraisal system is essentially made to achieve this objective and not to discourage or demoralise a Govt. servant despite his/her good performance. The performance appraisal system is not governed by statutory rules and therefore same is regulated by administrative instructions issued by the Govt. Therefore, the performance appraisal system is essentially made to achieve this objective and not to discourage or demoralise a Govt. servant despite his/her good performance. The performance appraisal system is not governed by statutory rules and therefore same is regulated by administrative instructions issued by the Govt. As per instructions issued by the Govt., the Reporting Officer should not form a hasty opinion or arrive at conclusion based on insufficient data or hearsay evidence while writing APARs. It is also expected of the Reporting Officer to record adverse remarks in performance appraisal system only when the person reported upon persistently fails to show improvement. 15. Likewise, it is responsibility of the Reviewing Officer to verify the correctness of the remarks of the Reporting Officer. In case Reviewing Officer is not sufficiently familiar with the work of the person reported upon, so as to be able to arrive at a proper and independent judgment of his own, he may make such enquiries as he may consider necessary. If the yardsticks are applied in the instant case more particularly in the backdrop of consistent good performance of the petitioner, then it can very well be inferred without any demur that Reporting Officer has not adhered to the administrative instructions while recording impugned adverse remarks against the petitioner. It is also quite perplexing that the Reviewing Officer has also not cared to examine the matter objectively in adherence of Govt. instructions. Besides non adherence of the instructions issued by the State Government for writing APARs, it is also clearly borne out from the record that the Reporting Officer has not even solicited requisite information about performance of the petitioner from the institution where she was working. This sort of situation makes impugned adverse remarks per se vulnerable and consequently unsustainable. 16. It would be just and appropriate to refer to Annex.6 in this behalf wherein Principal of the College has clarified that neither any information was solicited from the college nor such information was divulged by the college to the Reporting Officer. This sort of situation makes impugned adverse remarks per se vulnerable and consequently unsustainable. 16. It would be just and appropriate to refer to Annex.6 in this behalf wherein Principal of the College has clarified that neither any information was solicited from the college nor such information was divulged by the college to the Reporting Officer. The recitals contained in communication dated 15th of September 2012 (Annex.6) in vernacular reads as under:- lsB eFkqjknkl fcukuh jktdh; Lukrdksrj egkfo|ky; ukFk}kjk jkt0 Accredited C++ by NAAC dzeakd 2057 fnuakd 15-09-2012 MkW0 fiz;k lkWykseu O;k[;krk xf.kr lsB eFkqjknkl fcukuh jktdh; Lukrdksrj egkfo|ky;] ukFk}kjk fnuakd 15-09-2012 lUnHkZ% vkids i= fnuakd 13-09-2012 esa vkids }kjk pkgh xbZ rF;kRed lwpukvksa ds laca/k esaA egksn;k] vkids izkFkZuk i= esa vkids }kjk egkfo|ky; esa vkidh dk;Z vof/k 01-07-2008 ls 30-06-2009 ls lacaf/kr tks rF;kRed lwpuk,a pkgh xbZ Fkh] ml laca/k esa egkfo|ky; ds fjdkMZ ,ao vkidh futh QkbZy dh tkap djus ,ao rF;ksa dh iqf"V fd;s tkus ds mijkar ys[k gS fd% vkids }kjk egkfo|ky; esa dk;Z vof/k 01-07-2008 ls 30-06-2009 rd vkids }kjk laikfnr f'k{k.k dk;Z dh xq.kork@fu;ferrk dks ysdj Nk=ksa dh vkSj ls dksbZ f'kdk;r izkpk;Z ds ikl ntZ ugha djkbZ xbZA mDr dk;Z vof/k ds nkSjku fdlh Hkh ladk; lnL; dh vkSj ls vkids O;ogkj dks vuqfpr] vf'k"V vFkok ln~Hkkouk jfgr crkrs gq, vkids fo:) dksbZ f'kdk;r izkIr ugha gqbZA bl laca/k esa u gh izkpk;Z dh vkSj ls vkidksa viuk O;ogkj lq/kkjus ds laca/k esa dksbZ fo"kkfunsZ'k ;k psrkouh gh tkjh dh xbZA vkids }kjk egkfo|ky; esa dk;Z djrs gq, mDr dk;Z vof/k ds nkSjku fdlh Hkh lfefr ds izHkkjh us vkids dk;Z dks vlarks"kizn ugha crk;k vkSj u gh bl vk/kkj ij vkidks lfefr ls gVk, tkus dh flQkfj'k izkpk;Z ds le{k dhA egkfo|ky; esa mDr dk;Z vof/k ds nkSjku dk;Z djrs gq, vkids dk;Z ifj.kke] usr`Ro xq.k] fo'ys'k.kkRed] izcU/kdh;] fu.kZ; ysus vFkok igy djus dh ;ksX;rk ds laca/k esa ;k vU; fdlh Hkh fo"k; esa izkpk;Z }kjk vkids uke ls dksbZ fyf[kr lykg vFkok HkRlZuk laca/kh fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ i= vkidks tkjh ugha fd;k x;kA egkfo|ky; esa mDr dk;Z vof/k ¼01-07-2008 ls 30-06-2009½ ds fy, funs'kky; dkWyst f'k{kk foHkkx vFkok dkfeZd foHkkx }kjk vkids dk;ksZ ds laca/k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh dksbZ tkap ugha dh xbZ vkSj u gh bl laca/k esa dksbZ lwpuk egkfo|ky; ls eaxokbZ xbZA bl laca/k esa dk;kZy; egkfo|ky; }kjk fdlh Hkh izdkj dh lwpukvksa@rF;ksa dk vknku iznku funs'kky; dkWyst f'k{kk foHkkx vFkok dkfeZd foHkkx ds lkFk ugha fd;k x;kA izkpk;Z lsB eFkqjknkl fcukuh jktdh; Lukrdksrj egkfo|ky; ukFk}kjk jkt0 17. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the impugned adverse remarks are not founded on objective considerations of the Reporting Officer and furthermore these remarks are per se contrary to the instructions issued by the Government to regulate performance appraisal system. That apart, rejection of representation of the petitioner by the Reviewing Officer too fall short of requirements envisaged under the Govt. instructions. 18. As regards responsibilities of Reporting Officer, my view finds support of a Bench decision of this Court in the case of S.K. Bansal v. Rajasthan High Court [2003 (1) WLC (Raj.) 623], wherein following parameters are laid down for making adverse entries in appraisal reports: "18. It has to be agreed on all hands that annual confidential reports/annual performance appraisal reports form the sole basis and plank of the service career on an employee and the these reports, depends the future career of the concerned officer/employee and such remarks may marr or bless his service career. Such remarks may sometimes give boost in the service and at the same time, they can also be used to the serious prejudice of the employees for the purpose of supersession, compulsory retirement etc. In nut shell, it goes without saying that the remarks recorded in the annual confidential reports of an officer leave an indelible impression on his service career and it is through the ACRs/APARs that the over all performance, integrity and conduct of the first principles, the following requirements must be followed for the purpose of recording the communication of the adverse remarks, when no procedure or written guidelines are available: (i) In case any defect is noted with regard to the work, conduct and performance of an officer/employee, the Reporting Officer may immediately bring it to the notice of the concerned officer/employee to take care of such defect and if the defect yet persists, then only, the Reporting Officer should proceed to record adverse remarks. (ii) Satisfaction for the purpose of recording adverse remarks may be subjective satisfaction of the Reporting Officer but it must be based on objective facts which may also, in a given case, include the perception of the Reporting Officer with regard to the Reporting Officer with reference to his over all performance and conduct. (ii) Satisfaction for the purpose of recording adverse remarks may be subjective satisfaction of the Reporting Officer but it must be based on objective facts which may also, in a given case, include the perception of the Reporting Officer with regard to the Reporting Officer with reference to his over all performance and conduct. (iii) In case any adverse remark is to be recorded with regard to the integrity of an officer/official, it must precede a clear intimation in advance to the concerned officer that his integrity is reported to be doubtful and unless there is any cogent material on the basis of which his integrity could be found to be doubtful, the remarks may not be made against the integrity of the officer on the basis of rumors. (iv) The remarks have to be recorded at the end of the year and must be conveyed to the concerned officer/official within a reasonable time because conveying of the remarks after long lapse of time, defeats the very purpose of recording the remarks. 19. The Supreme Court, in case of S. Ramchandra Raju v. State of Orissa, AIR 1995 SC 111 underlined the need to write confidential reports objectively, fairly and dispassionately in a constructive manner either commending or downgrading the conduct, character, ability, efficiency and integrity of the officer in that behalf. The Court has also emphasized that writing confidential reports bears onerous responsibility on the Reporting Officer to eschew his subjectivity and personal prejudices or proclivity or predilections and to make an objective assessment. In view of the foregoing discussion, the instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders/communications Annex.2, 4 & 8 are hereby quashed and set aside.