S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11616/2009 Miss Vimla Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 15.12.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Dr.Pushpendra Singh,for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is aggrieved against the order of rejection of his representation against the adverse entries made by his officer for the year 2005-06 (08.07.2005 to 31.03.2006). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had reasonable apprehension that concerned officer will record adverse entries in her ACR and therefore, she gave a letter to the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Rajasthan, Jaipur on 18.12.2006. In spite of her request, the ACRs were not sent to another officer nor the communication was responded by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes. The petitioner's application when came up before the said concerned officer then he made adverse entries which were communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 17.03.2008. The petitioner's contention is that her ACRs for previous yeara were very good, however, petitioner submitted representation against those adverse entries and that has been rejected without considering the petitioner's contention. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on record. So far as petitioner's apprehension that his officer may record adverse entries in her ACRs are concerned, she might have developed that impression and may have written letter to the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, but her expectation that the Commissioner should have responded to this letter, is too high and the Commissioner was not required to respond to that communication and was not bound to change the officer for recording comments on petitioner's ACRs. The petitioner's representation was duty considered against the adverse entries in ACR and the communication sent to petitioner dated 17.03.2008 clearly reveals that she was informed with facts and reason for recording adverse entries so that she may submit her representation and as stated above her representation was rejected after considering the facts and therefore no ground is made out for interference by this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the writ petition of the petitioner having no merit, is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. Bharti/-