Rajni Kant Verma vs State of U.P.and others

K.N. Singh, J.

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of the State Government dated September 30, 1973, retiring the petitioner compulsorily from service.

The petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. After the petitioner had crossed the age of 50 years the State Government by its order dated September 30, 1973, retired him compulsorily from service in exercise of its power under Article 465, Note I of the Civil Services Regulations. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order on the ground that there was no material before the State Government to form the requisite opinion that his services were not required in public interest. Allegations of mala fide have also been made against Sri H.S. Haq, Secretary, Cooperative Department, U.P., Lucknow.

The allegations of mala fide have been denied by Sri Haq in the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the State. The petitioner has filed to prove the allegations of mala fides. The allegation that there was no material against the petitioner or that the decision to retire him was taken arbitrarily is denied by the respondent. In the counteraffidavit of the State Government it has been asserted that the record of the petitioner''s service was not satisfactory, the decision to retire the petitioner compulsorily was taken after considering his record of service. The petitioner had been awarded adverse entries in 196768, 196869 and 196970. The petitioner on the other hand has asserted that he was due to cross the efficiency bar on August 6, 1970, but as he had filed a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench, the question of his crossing the efficiency bar was kept pending and it was only by the order dated July 20, 1973, that he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar. It is urged that since the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar on July 20, 1973, the adverse entries if any prior to that date stood waived, and those adverse entries could not be taken into account in assessing the petitioner''s performance in service while considering the question of his retention in service. In paragraph 22 of the counteraffidavit of S. Pant filed on behalf of the State Government it has been stated that the petitioner was allowed to cross efficiency bar by its order dated July 20, 1973 with effect from August 26, 1966 and while allowing the petitioner to cross efficiency bar only those entries were taken into account which had been awarded to him prior to 1966 and that none of the entries which were awarded after 1966 had been taken into account in allowing the petitioner to cross his efficiency bar. The petitioner''s overall performance and record of service was considered in taking the impugned decision. He had earned adverse entries in the years 196768, 196869 and 196970 which were taken into account. In the circumstances the petitioner''s contention that the State Government had taken into account those entries which stood waived is not correct. The petitioner''s contention, therefore, must fail.

No other point was pressed before me.

The petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.