^ u^ f°5 BSFOBS IHS MADHTA PEADSSH S1&TS Aa'IICTISIRA'EITB TBIBOTffl, _PBIIGIPffl. BfflGH. SWSL?SB^_ G.A» Ho' i. //2^^36' of 1@9S. EaTI'riOBSR s Sbrfc• KaiBia Mahe stiwart , agea- abou't; 45 years,- wlfs of Shrl.Prem Narayan • • Hatieshvari , by ocoapatlon - - servlee, - r/e Krlshna Magar, Boriya Road, Baipur, TdSSCTS 1. Sfeate of Hadhya Pradesh- t;b?oi3gh the Seoretary;. va.tO.stty of Hlgher Edncatlon,'Siopal. 2* The 3'oint Blrsefor-Pa'bIlc Instruefclons, Baipur DivisiOA, Baipar. 3i aat. •'Krishna Mitra, Ittee Prl.nclpai, Oo7t« «r.B'«-BaBi Blgber Sscondary School, Ealpur. OETAa_S C? APPLIGATIOH .,X.^.^.BtadufcA-*^*a--».^— ^•^ !EI c!?:'^ii' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT^ILASPUR (Hon. IVIr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Writ Petition (S) No. 1129 of 2005 ^PETmONER Smt. KamlaMaheshwari VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofMadhya Pradesh and others Shri Parag Kotecha counsel for the petitioner Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for the respondents/State. WRITPETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTIONOFINDIA ORDER (01.09.2010) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 28.03.1995 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.2, the Joint Director Publicj; Instructions, Raipur, whereby though accepting the representation of.th^ petitioner dated 07.02.1995 the adverse remarks made against her in th^ annual confidential report for the period ending 31 March 1994 has beeri deleted yet an expectation from her regarding non-recurrence of such a situation in future and due co-operation in maintenance of discipline, is mad^ from her. To ensure exactitude, said note of expectation runs thus: | "f^TTTT ^r srmr t f^ rsf^sj if ^\ I^CT? cf?T qf^RSTRT ^p=r ^r sicTw ^ sn^ ~^Tf rTSTT Rdlriy, TT &I^||<L|'I si-m? ?@^ T? ^T??(Tr 'sfi^ i' 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the adverse entries made ir| the confidential report of the petitioner itself have been deleted, there was nq occasion for the concerned authority to write such a note of expectation as mentioned above. He submits that while deleting the adverse remarks irj respect of similarly placed person i.e. one Smt. R. Bhamra, no such note of expectation has been made and therefore, the act ofthe authority concerned in appending the note to this effect in the case o.f the petitioner is totally discriminatory and the same needs to be deleted. j, 3. On the other hand it has been submitted by the counsel for th^ respondents/State that ifthe impugned order is seen in its totality it is apparen^j lli •^'^.•: ffiii -2-- . that the adverse entry made in the confidential report of the petjtioner for th^ period ending 31 March, 1994 has been deleted by the competent authorit^ after considering the representation made by her and it is only the expectatior| of the authority made from the petitioner which has been reduced to writing. Hq submits that under no circumstances the said note of expectation can b^ termed as an adverseremark against her. f 1 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available or], record. 5. From the record, it appears that on 1^ February, 1995 vide Annexure A'j 4, the petitioner was communicated an adverse remark in her Confidentia|;i Report for the period ending 31 March, 1994 in the following term: "disinterestedness in the Government duty" l' i Thereafterthe petitionerwas awarded "Grade-C". ! 6. In the order itself it was mentioned that if the petitioner was aggrievec wifh the above adverse confidential report, she would be at libertyto make' representation before the competent authority. Subsequently, the petitiorier made a representation vide Annexure A-5 on 07.02.1995 and vide impugne^i! order the same been allowed clearly indicating that the adverse entry as madg i; in the confidential report of the petitioner stood deleted and thereafter th^!| competent authority made a note of expectation as described above. i 7. In the aforesaid view ofthe matter, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that the above said note of expectation is not adverse against the petitioner irj any manner whatsoever and it is merely an expectation of the department frorrj 1 her. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the petitioner that on account of th^, aforesaid expectation made by the competent authority, any of the rightsofthq; pefitioner has been affected adversely at any point of time during her servic^, tenure and that being so, it cannot be said that the same is arbitrary. Eventh^) said note of expectation has not been made a part ofservice record and mgrel^i because in the case of some other employee while deleting the adverse entrie^ no such note has been appended, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the same especially when the said note has not adversely affected the petitioner's interest. :;! r.i.Sf ,i:!;fl,;,i^i, BilM ilL ...GF" (B -p ro 3- B) § o3 cn <-+• cm Q. m O) M B) 9)3 '< (nca- a> 3' 3 8 !B3 Q. s (Bs3' 3 03 < (6 ED 03 fl) O) s~• (C W ^, ' u>oc: 0) cn (C Q. ai' tu s §' ro- s s- -(D o- (D :T (D Q- '5 s- g. ^^'S^^S^JS^i •^.:'^:-S^^^tW-'^^N!J