[2025:RJ-JP:36280-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 655/2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.823/2025 Raj Bihari Mittal S/o Late Shri Mahadev Prasad Mittal, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of 73/303-A, Near Tagore Hospital, Mansarovar, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Forest Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Head Of The Forest Force- Hoff), Aranya Bhawan, Jhalana Industrial Area, Jaipur 3. Priya Ranjan, Chief Conservator Of Forest At Present Posted As Joint Secretary, Department Of Agriculture And Farmers Welfare, Ministry Of Agriculture And Farmers Welfare, Government Of India, New Delhi ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 09/09/2025 1. Heard on application No.807/2025 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. 2. For the reasons stated & grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the special appeal, is condoned. 3. Heard. 4. While passing the order dated 14.02.2025, learned Single Judge took a contrary view that the law is well settled that a Judge sitting singly, is bound by judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in Tayyab Ali v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ [2025:RJ-JP:36280-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-655/2025] Petition No.1998/1988) decided on 22.09.1988, wherein it has been held by the Full Bench that a challenge to the adverse remark in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) would not be maintainable before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (R.A.T.) in terms of the provisions of the Act singly and can only be challenged if the challenge is also made to the consequential action of promotion, for seniority on compulsory retirement or as the case may so arises. 5. In the present case, the appellant/writ petitioner have challenged only the adverse remark noted in his APAR and the appeal does not lie before the Tribunal. To the said extent, we find that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the appellant to approach the learned R.A.T. However, on merits, we find that the appellant is already retired from his service. The adverse remark has not affected either grant of selection scale or his promotion or any other service benefit. 6. Therefore, the challenge to the adverse remark entered in his APAR for the year 2019-20, is merely an academic exercise. We are of the firm view that the adverse remark entered in his APAR is only stigmatic to the extent of affecting his service benefits and not otherwise. It cannot be said to be causing a social stigma. 7. In view thereof, the present special appeal is misconceived and accordingly stands dismissed to the aforesaid extent. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J SAHIL SONI /58