JUDGMENT K. N. Singh, J. - Hardwari Lal, petitioner. has challenged the validity of an order issued by the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Allahabad dated 30-12-1970 retiring him from service on the expiry of three month's period from the date of the service of the order. 2. The petitioner was recruited as a Lineman, Telephones in the Telegraph Department on 3rd August, 1938. He was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector, Telephones. Petitioner's services were terminated with effect from 30th June, 1970 by the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Allahabad, opposite party No. 1, under his order dated 26th June, 1970 retiring him from service compulsorily under clause (J) Fundamental Rule 56. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the order dated 26th June, 1970. The writ petition was allowed by Hon'ble D. S. Mathur. J. on 28th September, 1970 and the order dated 26th June, 1970 was quashed on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 55 years age, hence he could not legally be retired under Fundamental Rule 56 (J). The petitioner was thereupon reinstated but he was again retired from service by the order of the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, dated 30th December, 1970 passed in exercise of his powers under Rule 2 (2) of the Libralised Pension Rules on the completion of petitioner's 30 years qualifying service. By means of the present petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order dated 30th December, 1970. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He has made two pronged attack on the impugned order. According to him there are two different set of Rules conferring power on the Appointing Authority to compulsorily retire a Government servant under Fundamental Rule 56 (J), and under Rule 2 (2) of the Libralised Pension Rules. There are, however, no guiding principles as to under what circumstances action should be taken under Fundamental Rule 56 (J) or under Rule 2 (2) of Libralised Pension rules, the matters is left to the sweet will and arbitrary action of the Officers. There are, however, no guiding principles as to under what circumstances action should be taken under Fundamental Rule 56 (J) or under Rule 2 (2) of Libralised Pension rules, the matters is left to the sweet will and arbitrary action of the Officers. Learned counsel has further urged that rule 2(2) of Libralised Pension Rules itself is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the rules do not lay down any guiding principle or criterion for the guidance of appointing authority in retiring a Government servant on the completion of 30 years' qualifying service. In the absence of any such guiding principles, the authorities are free to pick and choose according to their sweet will in an arbitrary manner, which is violative of equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The impugned order of retirement is alleged to have been passed malafide. 4. Fundamental Rule 56 (J), as applicable to Government servants of the Union of India, as amended in May, 1969, reads:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule the appropriate authority shall, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do have the absolute right to retire any Government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice. (i) of he is in Class I or Class II service or post the age limit for the purpose of direct recruitment to which is below 35 years after he has attained the age of 50 years. (ii) In any other case after he has attained the age of 55 years. Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to a Government servant referred to in clause (e) who entered Government service on or before 23rd July, 1966 and to a Government servant referred to in clause (f)." 5. Under the enacting clause of Fundamental Rule 56, as applicable to the servants of the Union of India, the age of superannuation is 58 years. Clause (j) of Rule 56, however, enumerates circumstances under which the services of a Government servant can be dispensed with by compulsorily retiring him on attaining the age of 50 years so far as Class I Officers are concerned. Clause (j) of Rule 56, however, enumerates circumstances under which the services of a Government servant can be dispensed with by compulsorily retiring him on attaining the age of 50 years so far as Class I Officers are concerned. As regards other Class of Officers and servants of the Union Government, they can compulsorily be retired on giving three months notice or pay in lieu thereof on attaining the age of 55 years. Such retirement can, however, be made only if the appropriate authority was satisfied that the compulsory retirement of a Government servant was necessary in public interest. 6. The petitioner was admittedly a Class III employee, as such clause (ii) of Fundamental Rule 56 (j) was applicable to him and he could be retired from service by the appropriate authority under the said Rules only after he had attained the age of 55 years by giving him three months' notice in writing or three months' pay in lieu thereof without assigning any reasons. The petitioner, however, could not be retired as admittedly he had not attained the age of 55 years, but since the appropriate authority was satisfied that the petitioner's continuance in service was not in public interest, action against him was taken under Rule 2 (2) of the Libralised Pension Rules. 7. Rule 2(2) of the Libralised Pension Rules, 1950 reads: - "An officer may retire from service any time after completing 30 years qualifying service provided that he shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the appropriate authority at least 3 months before the date on which he wishes to retire. Government may also require an officer to retire, any time after he has completed 30 years qualifying service provided that the appropriate authority shall give, in this behalf a notice in writing to the officer at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire." The above provision confers power on the appropriate authority of the Union of India to retire a Government servant by giving him three months notice provided such a Government servant has completed 30 years qualifying service. The power so conferred on the appropriate authority is not unilateral one, the Government servant has also been given an option to retire from service by giving three months notice to the appropriate authority after he has completed 30 years qualifying service. The power so conferred on the appropriate authority is not unilateral one, the Government servant has also been given an option to retire from service by giving three months notice to the appropriate authority after he has completed 30 years qualifying service. A Government servant, therefore, is not hound to continue in service beyond the 30 years of qualifying service unless he wanted it. Similarly, the Government has armed itself with the power to dispense with the services of a Government servant if he had completed 30 years qualifying service. 8. Fundamental Rule 56 (j) as well as he Libralised Pension Rules, both apply to the petitioner, Sri B. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since no guidelines have been laid down indicating the circumstances under which action could be taken under Fundamental Rule 56 (j) or under the Libralised Pension Rules, the matter has been left to the sweet-will and arbitrary action of the executive officers. There is no merit in this contention. No doubt both the rules apply to the Government servants but the rules themselves envisage two different circumstances under which action is taken against a Government servant. The purpose of vesting power in the competent authority to retire a Government servant under either of the aforesaid provisions is substantially the same viz. to weed out unsuitable employees but the conditions whereunder the two powers are to be exercised are different. Under Fundamental Rule 56(j) power to compulsorily retire a Government servant can be exercised by the appropriate authority only after such Government servant has completed 55 years of age, while under rule 2(2) of the Libralised Pension Rules, power to retire a Government servant can be exercised only alter such a Government servant has completed 30 years qualifying service. A Government servant, who may not have attained the age of 55 years, and if he continuanee in service, is not considered to be in public interest by the appropriate authority, action against him can be taken under rule 2(2) of the, Libralised Pension Rules, provided he has completed 30 years qualifying service. A Government servant, who may not have attained the age of 55 years, and if he continuanee in service, is not considered to be in public interest by the appropriate authority, action against him can be taken under rule 2(2) of the, Libralised Pension Rules, provided he has completed 30 years qualifying service. Similarly, there may be a Government servant who may have not completed 30 years qualifying service, though he may have attained the age of 55 years, in that case if the appropriate authority is of the opinion,on that such Government servant should be compulsory retired from service, action can be taken against him under Fundamental Rule 56(j). 9. The two sets of provisions fixing different dates with effect from which an employee can be made to retire compulsorily do not apply equally to employees similarly situated. Both the sets of rules are equally applicable to all employees without any discrimination. In one case power has been conferred to retire a Government servant on the completion of 30 years of service while in the other power has been conferred to retire a Government servant on completion of 55 years of age. The two sets of rules envisage different conditions for the exercise of powers. In any case, even if the discretion is left with the appropriate authority to take action under either of these two sets of rules, no prejudice is caused to the Government servant, because even if an order of compulsory retirement is pissed either under Fundamental Rule 56(l) or under Rule 2(2) of the Libralised Pension Rules, none of the vested rights of a Government servant are affected, his pension is not affected and he is allowed to earn his full pension on the basis of the period of his service. Consequences of an order under Rule 2(2) of the Libralised Pension Rules are not more stringent than the consequences which ensue on the issue of an order under Fundamental Rule 56(J) compulsorily retiring a Government servant. The grievance of discrimination is, therefore, misconceived. 10. In the present case, however, the question of discrimination does not arise. As already observed the Divisional Engineer, the competent authority was of the opinion that the petitioner's continuance in Government service was not in public interest, he. The grievance of discrimination is, therefore, misconceived. 10. In the present case, however, the question of discrimination does not arise. As already observed the Divisional Engineer, the competent authority was of the opinion that the petitioner's continuance in Government service was not in public interest, he. therefore, took action for retiring him under Rule 2(2) of the Libralised Pension Rules, as the petitioner had completed 30 years qualifying service. In the petitioner's case there was no choice left with the Divisional Engineer, because the petitioner had not completed 55 years age, hence he could not take action under clause (j) of Fundamental Rule 56. The petitioner's grievance about discrimination is, therefore, untenable in law. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that Libralised Pension Rules were not applicable to the petitioner, instead Fundamental Rule 56 was applicable, consequently, petitioner could not legally be retired under Rule 2(2) of Libralised Pension Rules. Fundamental Rules 56 as well as Libralised Pension Rules both apply to persons appointed to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union. Fundamental Rule 56 has continued to be in force even prior to the year 1950. Libralised Pension Rules were enforced with effect from 17th April, 1950. The memorandum issued by the . Government of India, Ministry of Finance dated 17th April, 1950, by which the Libralised Pension Rules were enforced clearly stated that on the recommendation of the Central Pay Commission, the President was pleased to direct that the Libralised Pension Rules shall apply to persons appointed M services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union and the existing Rules relating to pension and gratuity shall be modified to the extent indicated in the Libralised Pension Rules. The Libralised Pension Rules regulate the grant and fixation of pension of an employee who retires from service while Fundamental Rule 56 prescribes the age of superannuation. Under Rule 56 age of superannuation fixed for the Government servants of the Union Government is 58 years, but the Rule confers power on the Government to compulsorily retire any Government servant on his attaining 55 years of age without assigning any reason, provided his retirement is found to he necessary in public interest. Libralised Pension Rules or in addition to and not in derogation to Fundamental Rule 56 and it operates in separate field. Libralised Pension Rules or in addition to and not in derogation to Fundamental Rule 56 and it operates in separate field. Rule 56 deal with compulsory retirement while Rule 2 (2) of Libralised Pension Rules deals with the retirement simplicitor The provisions contained in the two set of Rules do not overlap each- other but give additional power to Government to take appropriate action against Government servants in appropriate circumstances. Under Rule 2 (2) of Libralised Pension Rules, the Government as wall as the Government servants both have got an option to dispense with the services at any time after completing 30 years qualifying service by giving three months' notice. Such retirement does not affect the grant of pension. Rule 2 (3) of Libralised Pension Rules lays down that an officer who retires or is retired under Rule 2 (2) shall be granted a retiring pension not exceeding 30/80th average amount of emolument subject to a maximum of the 8100/ per Annnum. Petitioner has not placed any Material before, me to show that the Libralised Pension Rules were not applicable to him. The petitioner's contention therefore, must fail. 12. Sri Gupta. learned counsel for the petitioner has straneously urged that Rule 2 (2) of Libralised Pension Rules confers unbridled power without laying down any principles or guidelines for the guidance of the authorities in taking action against the Government servant. He has urged that the appropriate authority may act in a whimsical manner to pick and choose any Government servant to retire him under Rule 2 (2) of Libralised Pension Rules, the rule, therefore, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the case of Kripa Ram Gupta v. R. K. Talwar, AIR 1970 All. 296 : 1969 Services Law Reporter 897. Proviso (i) of the proviso to clause (a) of Fundamental Rule 56, prior to its amendment in 1969, as applicable in Uttar Pradesh, conferred a similar power on the appointing authority to retire a Government servant after he had attained the age of 55 years. 296 : 1969 Services Law Reporter 897. Proviso (i) of the proviso to clause (a) of Fundamental Rule 56, prior to its amendment in 1969, as applicable in Uttar Pradesh, conferred a similar power on the appointing authority to retire a Government servant after he had attained the age of 55 years. In Kripa Ram's' case, a Full Bench of this Court held that paragraph I to the proviso of Fundamental Rule 56 was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it did not provide any guideline for exercise of power by the appropriate authority in compulsorily retiring a Government servant after he had attained the age of 55 years. After the judgment of the Full Bench, Fundamental Rule 56, in its application to Uttar Pradesh, was amended by means of an Ordinance which was later on converted into an Act (U. P. Act No. V of 1970). The validity of the Fundamental Rule, as amended by U. P. Act No. V of 1970, again came up for consideration before a Full Bench of 5 Judges in the case of Iqbal Narain v. State of U. P., 1971 A.L.J, 169, the Bench held the amending Act valid. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the case of Igbal Narain to contend that in view of the judgment of the 5 Judges Full Bench, the law laid down in Kripa Rant Gupta's' case does not hold good. It is true that Kripu Ram Gupta's case was decided by a bench of three Judges while the case of Igbal Narain" was decided by five Judges. It is, however, apparent that the observations made in Ighal Naraia's" case are in the nature of obitor dictum on a point which was not necessary for the decision of that case. In Kripa Ram Gupta's case the Full Bench considered the validity of Fundamental Rule 56, applicable to Government servants of Uttar Pradesh; as it existed prior to its amendment while in Igbal Narain's case, the question which came up before the Full Bench was whether the provisions of U. P. Fundamental Rule 56 as amended by the U. P. Fundamental Rule 56 (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1970 were valid and constitutional. After the Judgment of Kripu Ram Gupta's' case, the legislature had intervened to remove the lecuna pointed out by the Full Bench of this Court by making amendments by the Ordinance, and the said Act. The cases which were before the Full Bench in Igbal Narain's' case were covered by Fundamental Rule 56 as amended by U.P. Act No. V of 1970. In Igbal Narain's' case, therefore, the Full Bench, was not concerned with the validity of the unamended Fundamental Rule 56, while considering the validity of Fundamental Rule 56, as amended by U P. Act No. V. of 1970, it was not necessary to decide the question of validity of the unamended Rule as that question was not raised in Iqbal Narain's case. It is well accepted principle that the questions which are not necessary for the determination of case could not be the rat of decidendi and the opinion of a larger bench on a question which was not necessary to decide the case would be only an obiter dictum. The obiter dictum made in Iqbal Narain's' case do not over-rule or shake the authority of law laid down by the Full Bench in Kripa Rain Gupta's' case. It is well accented principle that a case is after all an authority for what is actually decides and the general observations made in the judgment should be read with reference to its own facts. Having regard to the principle, I am of the opinion that the law declared by the Full Bench in the case of Kripa Ram Gupta' still holds the field, and the suggestion that the same has been over-ruled by a larger Bench of this Court in Iqbal Narain's case is not tenable in law. Since I am of the view that the law laid down by the Full Bench in Kripa Ram Gupta's' case still holds good the validity of Rule 2 (2) of the Libralised Pension Rules has to be considered and examined in the light of the law laid down by the Full Bench. 14. The Full Bench in Kripa Ram Gupta's' case laid down that if a statute or rule confers a naked arbitrary power on an executive authority to pick and choose Government servants for the purposes of retiring them on its whims and sweet will such conferment of powers would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 14. The Full Bench in Kripa Ram Gupta's' case laid down that if a statute or rule confers a naked arbitrary power on an executive authority to pick and choose Government servants for the purposes of retiring them on its whims and sweet will such conferment of powers would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The basis of decision in the case of Kripa Ram Gupta' was that proviso to clause (a) of Fundamental Rule 56 gave an undefined and uncontrolled power to the appointing authority to decide whether a Government servant should he retired prematurely while the other is allowed to run his normal span. The majority opinion held that the power conferred by Fundamental Rule 56 was a "crate blanche" hence the Rule was hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. These observations were made in the context of that else. There are, however, distinct features in the present case which distinguish it from the case of Kripa Ram Gupta'. 15. The Libralised Pension Rules, 1950 were enforced on the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission for conferment of retirement benefits on Government servants, in pensionable service. These rules were made applicable. In addition to the Superior Civil Services Rules, the Civil Service Regulations and the Central (Class IV) Services, (Gratuity, Pension and Retirement) Rules, 1936. Rule 2 (2) of Sec. I of Libralised Pension Rules embodies one of the facts of the pleasure doctrine embodied in Article 310 of the Constitution. It confers powers both on the appropriate authority as well as on the Government servant to retire from service after completing 30 years qualifying service. It is true that the rule itself does not indicate circumstances under which action is to he taken by appropriate authority for retiring a Government servant nor it prescribes the grounds upon which such action is to be taken. But that does not render the rule invalid. as the Government of India has taken decisions by way of resolutions, which regulate and control the exercise of the powers under Rule 2(2) of the Libralised Pension Rules. The Resolution of the Government of India is contained in Government of India. Ministry of Finance Office Memo No. F-19(15) Est. V/55 dated the 11th July. as the Government of India has taken decisions by way of resolutions, which regulate and control the exercise of the powers under Rule 2(2) of the Libralised Pension Rules. The Resolution of the Government of India is contained in Government of India. Ministry of Finance Office Memo No. F-19(15) Est. V/55 dated the 11th July. 1955, which lays down that the retirement under rule 2(2) of the Libralised Pension Rules should ordinarily be effected only when it become necessary in the public interest to do so, and reasons for taking such action should be formally recorded at the time by the authority competent to retire an officer. Another decision taken by the Government of India, was issued under the Government of India, Ministry of Finance letter No. F-20(4)-EN/56 dated the 8th February. 1956, it copy of which has hen filed as Annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit. According to this decision, the Union Government decide that the retirement under paragraph 2(2) of Libralised Pension Rules should be effected when such retirement was necessary in public interest, and the grounds of public interest were also specified: that the official had ceased to be efficient or was suffering from a physical infirmity. It was further made clear that action taken under rule 2(2) does not amount to removal or dismissal within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the provisions relating to forfeiture of pension on dismissal or removal would not be attracted. The aforesaid two decisions of the Government of India are published and quoted in Swamy's Libralised Pension Rules. 16. The directions issued by the Union of India in the aforesaid two letters are binding on all officers and authorities of the Central Government. The competent authority while exercising its powers under Rule 2(2) of the Libralised Pension Rules has to exercise that power to retire a Government servant only when it becomes necessary in the public interest to do so. The ground of public interest has also been indicated, which in the contest of public administration requires that if an official ceased to be efficient or was suffering from physical infirmity, then he should be retired under Rule 2(2) of the Libralised Pension Rules. The retirement of an officer, who ceased to be efficient or who was suffering from a physical infirmity would admittedly be in public interest. The retirement of an officer, who ceased to be efficient or who was suffering from a physical infirmity would admittedly be in public interest. The competent authority is also required to record reasons, before action is taken, under Rule 2(2), although such reasons are not to he communicated to the concerned Government servant. The requirement of public interest and the recording of reasons for retiring a Government servant provide ample safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of powers under the Rules. Public interest is a well accepted term and in the context of public administration it requires efficient Government officers to run the Government machinery. The rule in question guarantees a minimum service to the Government servant while on the other hand it confers power on the Government to energize its machinery and make it more efficient by compulsorily retiring those who in its opinion should not be there in public interest. 17. The decisions of the Central Government, which are required to he followed by the competent authority exercising powers under Rule 2(2) of the Libralised Pension Rules are not contrary to any provisions of the said Rules or to any other law or the Constitution. There is a presumption that the competent authority while exercising the powers under Rule 2(2) of the Libralised Pension Rules shall act according to the decisions of the Government of India. There can be no presumption to the contrary. The competent authority has to exercise its powers under Rule 2(2) in public interest. The grounds laid down in the decisions of the Government of India would reveal that the efficient public administration is the paramount consideration which has to be taken into account in exercising the powers to retire a Government servant on attaining the 30 years qualifying service. There is thus, in my opinion, sufficient guidance to regulate and control the exercise of power by the competent authority under the said Rule. The decisions of the Government of India are directed to achieve the purpose for which power has been conferred upon the competent authority to retire a Government servant. If in any of articular case the order of retirement is issued, not in public interest, but on extraneous, considerations, the courts have ample power to interfere with that order. The decisions of the Government of India are directed to achieve the purpose for which power has been conferred upon the competent authority to retire a Government servant. If in any of articular case the order of retirement is issued, not in public interest, but on extraneous, considerations, the courts have ample power to interfere with that order. But the power is conferred on responsible officers, and the discretions so vested in them, is regulated by the decisions of the Government of India, which rule out arbitrary and capricious exercise of that power. The decisions of the Government of India have filled the gaps in the rules and have made provision for those matters on which the rules were silent. I am, therefore, of the opinion that if Rule 2(2) is considered along with the aforesaid decisions of the Government of India, it would not be reasonable to hold that the said Rule confers and uncanalised and arbitrary power on the competent authority to retire a Government servant Rule. 2(2) therefore, cannot be declared void. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that the decision of the Government of India prescribing guidelines to its Executive Officers cannot amend the Rule 2 (2), consequently the validity of Rule 2(2) has to be considered without taking into consideration the aforesaid decisions of the Government of India. Reliance was placed on the case of I. N. Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1264 : 1967 Servies Law Reporter 204 and State of Assam v. Premadhar Baruah, AIR 1970 S.C. 1314 : 1970 Services Law Reporter 529. The decisions, however, do not lay down law contrary to what I have held. In both the cases different questions were involved. 19. In the case of I. N. Saxena (3), Government of Madhya Pradesh had issued a memorandum raising the age of superannuation from 55 years to 58 years. In that memorandum it was further mentioned that the steps were being taken to amend Fundamental Rule 56. Subsequently, the rule was amended but the age of superannuation continued to be 55 years and the proposed amendment raising the age of superannuation from 55 years to 58 years was not incorporated in the rules. I. N. Saxena, who was in the service of the Madhya Pradesh Government was retired on attaining the age of 55 years. Subsequently, the rule was amended but the age of superannuation continued to be 55 years and the proposed amendment raising the age of superannuation from 55 years to 58 years was not incorporated in the rules. I. N. Saxena, who was in the service of the Madhya Pradesh Government was retired on attaining the age of 55 years. He challenged the order of retirement claiming that the age of superannuation was 58 years, as contained in the memorandum issued by the Government, hence he could not be retired on attaining the age of 55 years. In repelling his contention the Supreme Court held that the memorandum issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh did not amend the Fundamental Rule 56 as the memorandum was not a Rule issued under Article 309, on the contrary it contained merely executive instructions, which could not amend Fundamental Rule 56. 20. In the case of Premadhar Baruah', a similar situation prevailed. The Government of Assam, issued a memorandum dated 21st March, 1963 stating therein that it was decided that the age of compulsory retirement of State Government Servants should be 58 years. Another memorandum dated 2nd March, 1968 was issued by the Government of Assam, which stated that the Government had decided that the age of compulsory retirement of State Government servants should be 55 years, dis-continuing the benefit of raising the age of superannuation to 58 years, as laid down in the office memorandum dated 21st March, 1963. Premadhar Baruah was in the service of the State of Assam. He was served with a notice dated 7th May, 1968 informing him that he was not to be retained in service beyond 30th September, 1968. Premadhar Baruah claimed right to continue in service upto the age of 58 years on the basis of the memorandum issued by the State Government dated 21st March, 1963. The Supreme Court repelled that contention on the ground that the order dated 21st March, 1963 and the order dated 2nd April, 1968 were both executive instructions and they were not the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, hence the age of superannuation as prescribed in the Rule continued to be in force, the executive instructions issued in the memorandum did not amend the Rules, therefore. the petitioner in that case could not claim any benefit on the basis of executive instructions. 21. the petitioner in that case could not claim any benefit on the basis of executive instructions. 21. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases laid down that a statutory rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be amended, rescinded or superceded by executive instructions. The Rules so framed can be amended only by the Governor or the President by exercising powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. In the present case, the decisions of the Government of India referred to above, do not purport to amend or modify Rule 2(2) of the Libralised Pension Rules. In fact respondents' counsel has not argued that Rule 2(2) stands amended by the aforesaid two decisions of the Government of India. He has, however, rightly urged that the decisions of the Government of India supplement the Rules on the points on which the Rules are silent. The Rule 2(2) of the Libralised erasion Rules and the decisions taken by the Government of India for providing guidance to the competent authority for exercising its powers under the said rule are not contrary to each other. On the other hand, the instructions issued by the Government of India are supplementary to the Rules. The Union Government was well within its powers in issuing the aforesaid directions, which provide guidance without amending the rules. This is possible under the law. 22. In Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 S.C. 1910 : 1967 Services Law Reporter 906; the argument that in the absence of any statutory rules governing promotions to the Selection Grade posts, Government could not issue administrative instructions and such administrative instructions could not impose any restriction not found in the rules was rejected by the Supreme Court. In that case, statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution declared certain posts to he selection posts appointments to which were to be made on the basis of merit. No provision was made in the Rules laying down principles regulating promotion of junior or senior grade officers to selection posts. The rules were silent on these matters. On behalf of the Government reliance was placed on the decisions of the Government of India contained in its letters laying down the principles for promotion to Selection Grade Posts. No provision was made in the Rules laying down principles regulating promotion of junior or senior grade officers to selection posts. The rules were silent on these matters. On behalf of the Government reliance was placed on the decisions of the Government of India contained in its letters laying down the principles for promotion to Selection Grade Posts. A similar argument, as has been raised before me, was raised before the Supreme Court that in the absence of any statutory rules governing promotions to Selection Grade Posts, the Government could issue administrative instructions and such administrative instructions could not impose any restriction not found in the Rules already framed. In repelling that argument, the Supreme Court held:- "It is true that there is no specific provision in the Rules laying down the principle of promotion of junior or senior grade officers to selection grade posts but that does not mean that till statutory rules are framed administrative instructions regarding the principles to be followed in promotions to the officers concerned to selection grade posts. It is true that Government cannot amend or supercede statutory rules by administrative instructions but if the Rules are silent on any particular point, Government can fill up the gap and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the Rules already framed." 23. In the present case Rule 2(2) of the Libralised Pension Rules confer power on the Government to retire a Government servant on the completion of 30 years qualifying service. It is implied in the Rules itself that such power is to be exercised in public interest i. e. for the purposes of efficient administration. What was implicit in the Rules itself was made explicit by the decisions of the Government of India. The Rule itself however, ex-facie did not lay down any criterion or grounds for exercise of the powers the rules were silent on this particular point. The Government of India by its decisions issued under its letters referred earlier made it clear that the powers contained under Rule 2(2) of the Libralised Pension Rules were to be exercised only when it was found necessary in public interest and that such public interest would be served if the Government servants, who were found unsuitable or physically infirm to discharge their duties were made to retire on completion of 30 years of service. The decisions of the Government of India have been fully published. These decisions further require competent authority to record. Reasons for taking action against a Government servant. These directions provide safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of powers. The instructions issued by the Government of India to my mind, do not supplant the Rule, on the contrary they supplement the rules as they make provision for matters with respect to which rules were silent. It is not obligatory under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to make rules for every detail. The Union Government and the State Government have executive powers in relation to all matters with respect to which the legislature has power to make laws. The Union Government has executive power in respect of Seventh Schedule List 1 entry 70 "Union Public Services All India Services Union Public Service Commission". The executive powers of the Union under Article 73 exists to the matters with respect to the Union Public Services. The Union Government has ample powers to take decision and issue administrative instructions with respect to public services of the Union Government even though no Riles are framed by it under Article 309 of the Constitution. See: B N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1942 , T. C. Cajee v. Jormanik Siem, AIR 1961 S.C. 276 . The Union Government therefore was competent to issue the aforesaid directions which regulate the exercise of powers under rule 2(2) of the Libralised Pension Rules. 24. The impugned order in the present case ex facie shows that it was passed in public interest. In the counter-affidavit it has been asserted that in exercising the power under Rule 2(2) of the Libralised Pension Rules, the Divisional Engineer, Telegraph considered the question in the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Government of India, it has been further asserted that on considering the entire service records and upon overall assessment of the petitioner's work it was found that the petitioner has ceased to be efficient and, as such, the respondent No 1 was of the opinion that his retirement was necessary in public interest. As already observed the impugned order ex-facie states that the appropriate authority was of the opinion that it was in public interest to retire the petitioner from service on his having completed 30 years service. As already observed the impugned order ex-facie states that the appropriate authority was of the opinion that it was in public interest to retire the petitioner from service on his having completed 30 years service. The expression 'Public interest' is of wide import and a matter, which is in public interest would necessarily depend upon the time, place and circumstances with respect to which the consideration of the question arises. In the context of public service, 'public interest' would certainly require to weed out unsuitable, inefficient Government officers or those who are not able to discharge their duties satisfactorily on account of physical infirmity. Orders passed in public interest retiring Government servants have consistently been held valid. The exercise of power to retire a Government servant in public interest has been held reasonable as the public interest itself provides sufficient guiding principles to the authority concerned, and the contention that conferment of power to retire a Government servant in public interest is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, has consistently been rejected. See: Shyamlal v. State of U. P., AIR 1954 S.C. 369 , T. G. Shivacharana Singh v. State of Mysore, AIR 1965 S.C. 280 , Baburam Gupta v. State of U. P., 1971 A.L.J. 653, I. N. Saxena v. State of M.P., AIR 1967 S.C. 1264 : 1967 Services Law Reporter 204, Union of India v. T. N. Sinha, AIR 1971 S.C. 40 . 25. Sri B. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has then urged that the impugned order of retirement has been passed malafide. According to the learned counsel, since the earlier order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner was quashed by this Court, the impugned order was passed by the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Allahabad on extraneous considerations. It has further been urged that adverse entries were made against the petitioner and the petitioner's representation against those entries were not considered and decided, instead the petitioner was compulsorily retired. On these facts plea of malafide has been raised. As already noted, the petitioner had been retired compulsorily by an order dated 21st March, 1970 under clause (j) of Fundamental Rule 56. The petitioner filed a writ petition, which was allowed by this Court on the ground that the petitioner had not attained the age of 55 years, therefore, he could not be compulsorily retired under Rule 56. As already noted, the petitioner had been retired compulsorily by an order dated 21st March, 1970 under clause (j) of Fundamental Rule 56. The petitioner filed a writ petition, which was allowed by this Court on the ground that the petitioner had not attained the age of 55 years, therefore, he could not be compulsorily retired under Rule 56. While allowing the writ petition this Court did not direct that no further action should be taken against the petitioner. If the respondent No. 1, the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, who was the appropriate authority under the Libralised Pension Rules had bonafide formed opinion that the petitioner's continuance in service was not in public interest, he had every right to retire the petitioner from service under Rule 2(2) of Libralised Pension Rules as the petitioner had completed 30 years qualifying service. The allegations of malafide raised by the petitioner have been dented in the counter-affidavit. The mere fact that the earlier orders passed under Rule 56 was quashed, did not take away the right of the appropriate authority to dispense with the petitioner's services under the provisions of the Libralised Pension Rules. No inference of malafide .an be drawn on these facts. As regards the petitioner's complaint regarding awarding of adverse entries is concerned, it is irrelevant for the purposes of the present case. Even if to adverse entries were not made in accordance with the existing Rule, and instructions, that will not invalidate the impugned order. The petitioner has not placed any reliable material before me to show that the impugned order was passed malafide, on extraneous considerations. It is easy to make allegations of malafide but difficult to prove. In the absence of sufficient material on record, petitioner's grievance of malafide must fail. 26. No other point was passed before me. Since the questions, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no force, petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 27. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.