JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - These two special appeals raise the same question and a will be convenient to decide them by a common judgment. Both the appeals have been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. They are directed against the judgments of a learned single Judge allowing writ petitions filed by respondent No. 1 and quashing an order of compulsory retirement. The learned single Judge repelled the various submissions raised in support of the writ petitions challenging the order of compulsory retirement except one. He held that the Government had validly adopted the criterion of `above average' while considering the question of compulsory retirement of these officers who had reached the age of 55 years, but in his opinion, no reasonable person could have come to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 in both the cases was not above average, on a consideration of his character roll for the last 10 years. 2. The learned Advocate-General appearing for the appellant State contested the aforesaid view of the learned single Judge. Mr. Khare appearing for the respondents supported the judgment of the learned single Judge on the alternative ground that the criterion of above average was arbitrary and void. 3. Previously, the age of superannuation of Government - servants was 55 years. It was raised to 58 years. The first proviso to Fundamental Rule 56(a) provides that the appointing authority may at any time without assigning any reason, require the Government servant to retire on three months' notice or pay in lieu of the whole or part thereof, after he attains the age of 55 years. It also conferred a right upon the Government servant to retire after giving three months' notice to the appointing authority after obtaining the age of 55 years. The first explanation provides that the decision of the appointing authority under the first proviso to require the Government servant to retire as specified therein shall be taken if it appears to the said authority to be in public interest and the State Government may from time to time issue executive instructions indicating guiding principles in that behalf. Explanation (2) provides that every such decision shall, unless the contrary is proved be presumed to have been taken in public interest. 4. Explanation (2) provides that every such decision shall, unless the contrary is proved be presumed to have been taken in public interest. 4. It is thus evident that the Government have an absolute right to retire a Government servant after he has reached the qualifying age without assigning any reason. A decision to compulsorily retire a Government servant is to be presumed to have been taken in the public interest. On 26th November, 1969, the State Government issued executive instructions in this regard. Condition No. 5 thereof mentioned that a Government servant whose work and conduct during the last 10 years of service have not been above average should be made to compulsorily refire. 5. In these appeals we have to consider two points: (1) whether the criterion of above average was arbitrary and so void, and (2) whether any reasonable person could say that the work and conduct of the respondents were not above average. In relation to the first point Mr. Khare urged that the Central Government had issued administrative instructions with respect to certain All India Services laying down the criterion of below average. Under it a Government servant was liable to be compulsorily retired if his work and conduct were be-low average. In the State of Uttar Pradesh when the age of superannuation was raised from 55 to 58 years the evident intention was that Government servants whose work and conduct were below average were to be allowed to continue till the age of 58 years. In this context the criterion of below average adopted by the Central Government was in conformity with the legislative intent in raising the age of superannuation from 55 to 58 years and so the criterion of above average adopted by the State Government in its executive instructions was contrary to the legislative intent and arbitrary. 6. It is settled that conditions of service need not be uniform in all services. They can vary from post to post and from service to services. 7. Under the provisions relating to compulsory retirement the Central Government as well as the State Government can act only if they find that the compulsory retirement of a particular Government servant is in public interest. In order to guide the appointing authorities the Government has been authorised to issue executive instructions. The Central Government issued instructions adopting the criterion of below average. In order to guide the appointing authorities the Government has been authorised to issue executive instructions. The Central Government issued instructions adopting the criterion of below average. The very premise of the argument raised by Mr. Khare is that below average is a criterion relevant from the point of view of public interest. If that be so, we fail to see how the criterion of above average could be said to be irrelevant. In our judgment the criterion of above average is as much relevant a guiding factor from the point of view of public interest as is below average. That being so, the decision whether the one or the other should be adopted is a purely policy decision which is left to the State Government by the first explanation to the first proviso to Fundamental Rule 56(a). It is well settled that Courts have no power to sit in appeal over such policy decisions of the Government. The fact that the Central Government had adopted the criterion of below average was a circumstance which the State Government could take into consideration, but its decision to adopt the criterion of above average cannot be characterised as arbitrary or illegal merely because it differed from the opinion of the Central Government. Such policy decisions entail consideration of the conditions obtaining in the services under the control of a particular Government. There is no allegation, much less any proof, that the conditions of service of All India Services were from the point of view of their being toned up or from the point of view of their efficiency being maintained, identical with the conditions obtaining in services under the control of the Government in this State. In Union of India v. J. N. Sinha, A.I.R. 1971 S. C. 40. the Supreme Court observed that Fundamental Rule 56 is not intended for taking any penal action. That rule merely embodies one of the facts of the `pleasure' doctrine embodied in Art. 310 of the Constitution. In some cases the Government may feel that a particular post may be more usefully held in public interest by an officer more competent than the one who is holding. It may be that the officer who is holding the post is not inefficient, but the appropriate authority may prefer to have a more efficient officer. In some cases the Government may feel that a particular post may be more usefully held in public interest by an officer more competent than the one who is holding. It may be that the officer who is holding the post is not inefficient, but the appropriate authority may prefer to have a more efficient officer. Various considerations may weight with the appropriate authority while considering the authority conferred by the rule. This supports the submission raised on behalf of the State Government that the criteria of above average in regard to compulsory retirement was relevant. In our opinion, the learned single Judge rightly repelled this submission. 8. The next question is whether the decision of the Government that the respondent's work and conduct during the last 10 years were not above average, was arbitrary. 9. It is true that a Government servant has no right to continue in service after the age of 55 years. An order of compulsory retirement does not cast any stigma. It does not involve any penal action. The second explanation to Fundamental Rule 56(a) raises a presumption that an order of compulsory retirement has been passed in public interest : with the result that the burden is upon the officer to affirmatively establish that the order was not in the public interest. 10. It is also settled that a decision to compulsorily retire is administrative. Courts of law cannot sit as a Court of appeal on facts over the decision of the State Government or the appointing authority, but it is equally well settled that if the decision is capricious or arbitrary, it can be set aside by the Courts. In Berium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, A.I.R. 1967 S. C. 295, Hidayatullah, J. observed that in cases where the formation of opinion is subjective, the existence of circumstances relevant to the inference as the sine qua non for action must be demonstrable. If the action is questioned on the ground that no circumstances leading to an inference of the kind contemplated by the section exists, the action might be exposed to interference unless the existence of the circumstance is made out. If the action is questioned on the ground that no circumstances leading to an inference of the kind contemplated by the section exists, the action might be exposed to interference unless the existence of the circumstance is made out. In the same case Bachawat, J. held that if it is established that there were no materials upon which the authority could form the requisite opinion, the Court may infer that the authority did not supply its mind to the relevant facts. An administrative decision reached on subjective satisfaction can be attacked in a Court of law interalia, on the ground. that it is arbitrary or. capricious. If the Court is satisfied that no reasonable person could have, on the relevant materials before him, formed the impugned - opinion which was formed by him, the decision would be arbitrary or capricious : see State of Maharashtra v. B. K. Takkamore, A.I.R. 1967 S. C 1353. 11. The learned Advocate-General placed before us the character rolls of the respondents. In some of the entries for the last 10 years the term "satisfactory" has been used. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged that the term "satisfactory" denotes above average work and conduct. On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General stressed that the term "satisfactory" means only an average performance. The Fundamental pules do not give any particular definition of the term "satisfactory" or of the terms "average", "below average" and "above average".' The term "satisfactory" will take its colour from the context in which it is used. If the term "satisfactory" has been used along with other terms highly commendatory of the officer, the term "satisfactory" may in the context well mean. above average. But if the term "satisfactory" is used simpliciter. it may not convey that sense. The word "satisfactory" is not a term of art. It is paragmatic. It has a flexible meaning, depending upon the sense and the context in which the person using it intends to use it. In our opinion, no fixed connotation or significance can be ascribed to this word while considering a large number of character roll entries. We have now to see whether the respondents have established that the decision that their work and conduct were not above average was arbitrary. 12. In our opinion, no fixed connotation or significance can be ascribed to this word while considering a large number of character roll entries. We have now to see whether the respondents have established that the decision that their work and conduct were not above average was arbitrary. 12. The order compulsorily retiring Sri S. M. Banerji, respondent No. 1 in special appeal No. 228 of 1973, was passed on 30th April, 1973. The relevant 10 entries would be from 1963 to 1973. They are as follows : 1963-64 : "To B. W. Agra from July 20, 1963. A well behaved, quiet and hard working whose conduct and work throughout the year was good Integrity certified." 1964-65 : "During the period under report he worked as Excise Inspector, Bonded Warehouse, Agra. A senior and experienced Excise Inspector who efficiently supervised the word of the Warehouse. Integrity certified." No one can possibly say that the entries are not above average. 1-4-1965 to 18-3-1966: "An efficient and experienced officer. Work and conduct during the year satisfactory. Was promoted towards the close of the year to the post of Superintendent of Excise. Integrity certified." 1966-67 (Upto November) : "Was promoted to the post of Superintendent Excise in March 1966. Is doing well in his new assignment. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri S. M. Banerji. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity." December 1965 to March 1967: "As above." 1967-68 : "An experienced and dependable officer. His performance has been satisfactory. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri S. M. Banerji. his general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity." 1968-69 : "An experienced and dependable officer. His performance has been satisfactory. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the Integrity of Sri S. M. Banerji. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity." In entries for 1965-66, 1967-68 and 1968-69 the term "satisfactory" has been used along with or after words like "efficient and experienced" as in 1965-66, and "experienced and dependable" as in 1967-68 and in 1968-69. Reading these entries, no one who is familiar with the language of character rolls, can fail to say that each of them is above average. Reading these entries, no one who is familiar with the language of character rolls, can fail to say that each of them is above average. 1-4-1969 to 31-3-1970: "Is an experienced Officer whose work has been very satisfactory. He is plain speaking, quiet and well behaved. It is certified that nothing has come to my knowledge which may cast any reflection on the integrity of Sri S. M. Banerji. His general reputation for honesty is good. As such I certify his integrity." 1970-71 : "An experienced and competent officer who has effective control over his subordinates. Has good knowledge of rules and regulations. Carries adequate inspections and worked hard in raising the excise revenue during Annual auctions of country liquor, Bhang and Tari. Good work was done in detections of excise cases and seizure of contra bands under his supervision. Deserves promotion. Did good work during Lok Sabha election of 1971 in the capacity of Presiding Officer. An experienced and competent Officer who maintained effective control in his area. Work good. It is certified that nothing has come to my knowledge which may cast any reflection on the integrity of Sri S. M. Banerji. His general reputation for honesty is good. As such I verify his integrity." 1971-72 : Opinion of District Officer, Jhansi. "Sri Banerji is an experienced and obedient officer. He has maintained effective control over his subordinate Inspector. He has sufficient knowledge of departmental rules. He has made adequate tours and inspections in his area. Gave good guidance to his subordinates in raising excise revenue and himself worked hard." Remarks of Excise Commissioner, U. P. "Sri Banerji is an experienced, quiet, hard working, competent and disciplined officer. He made adequate effective tours and inspections as a result of which there was an increase in consumption of country liquor annual auction and revenue. Had effective control over offenders and detected considerable cases against them. Had effective supervision over his subordinate staff and there was increase in the number of cases against in the work of Ganja squad also. He worked for about 1 months in the Head Office also and disposed of old files. His work and conduct throughout the year was good. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri Banerji. He worked for about 1 months in the Head Office also and disposed of old files. His work and conduct throughout the year was good. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri Banerji. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity." The entry for 1969-70 uses the term "very satisfactory" in addition to other laudatory comments. The entries for 1970-71 and 1971-72 are excellent. No one in his right mind could hold that they are not above average. The learned Advocate General did not even whisper that the entries for these years were anything less. 1-4-1972 to 31st March, 1973 : Remarks of Assistant Excise Commissioner, Jhassi. "Sri S. M. Banerji is an experienced hand working, competent and devoted officer who discharges his duties assigned to him with enthusiasm care, devotion, ability and honesty. Is fit for promotion. His work of auction in this district has been trouble free and excellent." Remarks of District Officer, Jhansi. "I agree what has been said above. Is a good officer. Is experienced and works hard Integrity certified." Remarks of Excise Commissioner, U. P. "Is an experienced and competent Officer as a result of whose hard work there was considerable rise in auction. His tours were satisfactory and his work of detection of cases was also good. Apart from his own work the work of Ganja squad, Jhansi, was also in his charge and at his guidance a good number of cases were detected. It is certified that nothing has come to my knowledge which may cast and doubt on the honesty of Sri S. M. Banerji. Integrity certified." 13. In regard to the entry of 1972-73 the remarks of the Assistant Excise Commissioner are of the character of "outstanding". He thinks Sri Banerji to be fit for promotion. The District Officer completely agrees with him. The remarks of the Excise Commissioner are equally laudatory. In his remarks the word "satisfactory" has been used in the sentence : "His tours were satisfactory and his work of detection of cases was also good". The word "satisfactory" in this sentence means good. Otherwise the use of the word "also" would become meaningless. There can be no doubt that read as a whole the entry of 1972-73 is much better than above average. 14. The word "satisfactory" in this sentence means good. Otherwise the use of the word "also" would become meaningless. There can be no doubt that read as a whole the entry of 1972-73 is much better than above average. 14. In our judgment, no rational person having any familiarity with the language of character rolls can characterise any of these 10 entries as anything but above average. The contrary decision of the Hon'ble Miniskr was, we regret to say, arbitrary. It was rightly quashed. 15. Coming to the case of Sri S. K. Ghosh, respondent No. 1 in special appeal No. 229 of 1973, we find that the position is not so simple. In this case the order of compulsory retirement was passed on 7th April, 1973. So, the relevant entries would be from April, 1963 to March, 1973. The entries from 1967 onwards indicate that the work and conduct of respondent No. 1 was above average. The entries for the years 1963 to 1967 are as follows : 1963-64 : "As Assistant Excise Commissioner, Bareilly charge he did inadequate touring and his inspections were also below prescribed numbers. Otherwise his work was satisfactory. Was found slow in dealing with the cases of breach of Molasses Rules against sugar factories. His control over his staff left much to be desired. As There is no evidence available to justify any reflection on his honesty I certify it." 1964-65 : "Work satisfactory. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri S.K. Ghosh. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity." 1965-66/1966-67 upto Nov.: "Work Satisfactory. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri S. K. Ghosh. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity. December 1966 to March 1967 : "I endorse the above remarks." 16. The entry of 1963-64 is definitely an adverse entry. The entry of 1964-65 is simply "work satisfactory". In the context of the 1963-64 entry coupled with the fact that no laudatory terms had at all been used along with the term "satisfactory", it cannot be said that a reasonable person could not at all come to the conclusion that this entry was not above average. The same is true with the entries of 1965-66 and 1966-67. In the context of the 1963-64 entry coupled with the fact that no laudatory terms had at all been used along with the term "satisfactory", it cannot be said that a reasonable person could not at all come to the conclusion that this entry was not above average. The same is true with the entries of 1965-66 and 1966-67. The result is that we cannot say that no reasonable person could have come to the conclusion that the entries for these four years were not above average. It is not our function to sit as a Court of appeal on facts over the subjective, decision of the State Government. When four out of ten entries are such that they may be considered as not above average, then the administrative decision that on an overall consideration of the ten years' entries his work and conduct were not found to be above average, cannot be characterised as capricious or arbitrary merely because the entries for the subsequent six years may show that the work and conduct of respondent No. 1 were above average. The learned single Judge observed : "The entry for the year 1963-64 is surely against the petitioner, but no adverse entry in the later period is alleged to have been awarded to him. I have perused the petitioner's character roll, which was produced by the learned Standing Counsel, and it appears to me that his record throughout the subsequent period was good and satisfactory. In fact, his record of service for the last six years shows that his work and conduct were on the whole above average. The last entries in the character roll are very complimentary. It must be borne in mind that a solitary or isolated entry will not be the determining factor. It is the petitioner's entire record during the last ten years of service which must be taken into consideration in order to decide, whether his work and conduct were above average." (Emphasis Supplied). In our opinion, these observations betray an approach that this Court is to `decide' as to how many years' entries ought to be below average before a subjective opinion could be formed that the overall performance is not above average. In our opinion, these observations betray an approach that this Court is to `decide' as to how many years' entries ought to be below average before a subjective opinion could be formed that the overall performance is not above average. The question whether one year's entry or four years' entries out of the ten relevant entries being below average would make the overall performance as not above average is itself a matter for the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority. This Court has no power to sit as a Court of appeal on facts. The question whether the recent entry should be given more weight and if so how much more weight over the earlier entries is again a question entirely within the jurisdiction of the appointing authority. These are matters on which there can be two opinions; and if that be so, the decision of the question goes beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts. Interference on the ground that recent entries ought to have been given more weight or that merely one adverse entry is not enough, would really be exercising an appellate power on facts which the Courts do not posses in such matters, In the case of Sri Ghosh it cannot be said that no reasonable person could come to the conclusion that his overall performance during the last ten years was not above average. 17. In the result, special appeal No. 228 of 1973 (State of U. P. v, S. M. Banerji and another) is dismissed while special appeal No. 292 of 1973 (Stale of U. P. v. S. K. Ghosh and another) is allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge in this case is set aside and the writ petition filed by S. K. Ghosh is dismissed, but we make no order as to costs in either case.