A.P. Sen, Actg. C.J.
1. This special appeal is directed against an order of Shri D.P. Gupta, J., dated 3-5-1976 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing an order of the State Government dated 2-9-1972 for his compulsory retirement under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
2. Having heard the learned Counsel at length, we have formed the opinion that this special appeal must fail. /The learned Single Judge has carefully viewed all aspects of the matter, and we have no reason to come at a different conclusion. The requirements of note below to Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') are clearly fulfilled.
3. The service record of the appellant as an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department was throughout being uniformly unsatisfactory, except for a few years, the Screening Committee ordered his compulsory retirement in public into est. The learned Deputy Government Advocate has placed before us the Secretariat file relating to compulsory retirement of Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department under Rule 244(2) of the Rules. On the scrutiny of the record, we find that after the appellant had completed 25 years qualifying service, his case along with that of others similarly placed like him, i.e., the other Assistant Engineers, who had completed 25 years qualifying service, was placed before the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee was a high-power body consisting of Sharva-Shri (1) R.S. Kapur Member, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Chairman; (2) D.C. Joseph, Member. Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Member; (3) Sher Singh, Commissioner, Removal of Public Grievances, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Member; (4) Mangal Behari, Special Secretary to Government, Appointments Department, Member; and J.S. Mehta Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Irrigation, Power & Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Screening Committer by its report dated 29-7-1972 recommended the compulsory retirement of eight officers, including the appellant, under Rule 244(2) of the Rules the matter was then placed before the State Government. The then Minister for Public Works Department Shri Harideo Joshi agreed with the report of the Screening Committee. The then Chief Minister late Shri Barkat Ullah Khan passed order dated 28-8-1972 for the retirement of the officers in question, including the appellant. The matter was again referred to the then Chief Minister as regards two other officers, but he by his order dated 17-3-1973 directed the retirement of all the officers, including the appellant.
5. The matter is squarely covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Tara Singh v. State of Rajasthan : 3SCR1002 and Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha : 3SCR216 and those of this Court in Dr. C.L. Pathak v. The State of Rajasthan D.B. Special Appeal No. 38 of 1976 an Dr. O.P. Gupta v. State of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 69 of 1976, decided on 25-1-1977. In view of the settled principles, the order of the compulsory retirement of the appeal ant tinder Rule 244(2) of the Rules, cannot be called in to question. There was material before the State Government on which it could have formed an opinion that the retention of the appellant in service was not in public interest. In O.P. Gupta's case we had in some what similar circumstances occasion to observe:
The Screening Committee and the State Government were entitled to look to these entries and consider their effect to come to the conclusion that the efficiency of the appellant was impaired or that he should be allowed to continue further or not. None of the above mentioned entries in the service roll of the appellant can be said to be irrelevant or nongermane to the question of public interest.
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx It is well established that the tight to pass an order of compulsory retirement is exercised by the Start Government in those case's where it is not considered desirable to make a formal charge of inefficiency. It is not for the Court to make assessment of the working capacity of the appellant at the relevant time and as to whether his efficiency was impaired or not, or he ceased to be fully efficient. It is neither reasonable nor desirable for this Court to substitute its own opinion in place of that of the State Government. The law On this point stands well settled that if some ground of material exists there it is not for this Court to consider the question of its sufficiency.
In that view, we held that the Court is only entitled to look into whether there was some material before the State Government, before ordering compulsory retirement of a public servant under Rule 244(2) of the Rules, We are satisfied that there was in this case sufficient material on the basis of which the State Government could have formed the opinion that the further retention of the petitioner was not in public interest.
6. The special appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.