CW 5227/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.5227/2008 Sugreev Singh Versus State & (2) Ors. Date of Order ::: 27/05/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Dr. Saugath Roy, for petitioner Instant petition has been filed assailing (1) adverse remarks recorded in annual performance appraisal report (“APAR”) of year 2004-05 communicated to petitioner on 24/04/06 and (2) rejection of his representation vide order dt. 09/10/07 (Ann.3). Nothing has come on record which may cause prejudice to him as a result of adverse remarks in question. Full Bench of this Court in Tayyab Ali Vs. State (1988(2) RLR p.1) holding that if adverse remarks are taken note of affecting service conditions, can be assailed alongwith order causing prejudice by filing appeal before service appellate tribunal under Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1976, finally observed ad infra:- “12. We are, therefore, of the opinion that an adverse entry in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report or an order rejecting representation against the same is not included within the ambit of sub-clause (v) of clause(f) of Section 2 of the Act; and, therefore, an appeal to the CW 5227/08 //2// Tribunal merely against such an adverse entry or an order rejecting the representation against the same by itself is not appealable to the Tribunal as already stated, 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...” In view of the remedy available to petitioner as observed in Tayyab Ali Vs. State, ibid, petitioner may approach the Tribunal if any prejudice at a later stage is caused to him on account of alleged adverse remarks recorded in his APAR of year 2004- 05. However, no interference is called for at this stage U/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.2/5227CW08-2705.doc