ORDER K. N. Singh, J. - This petition is directed against an order of the State Government dated 24th March, 1973, retiring the petitioner compulsorily from service under Fundamental Rule 56 (a) by giving him three months salary. 2. The petitioner joined Government service in 1939 as Excise Inspector. In 1959, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent, Excise Department. In 1960, he was appointed Assistant Excise Commissioner. Later on, in the year 1970-71 his promotion was approved by the Public Service Commission. He completed the age of 55 years on 31st December, 1972. but before the petitioner could reach the age of superannuation, he was compulsorily retired from service by an order of the State Government dated 24th March, 1973, issued under Fundamental Rule 56 (a) which stated that the Government was satisfied that it was in public interest to retire the petitioner from service with effect from the date of the service of the order on giving him three months salary in lieu of period of notice. The petitioner has challenged the validity of that order in the present petition. 3. Sri S.C. Khare learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the impugned order has not been passed in public interest, instead it has been issued arbitrarily on extraneous considerations. He urged that the petitioners work and conduct was excellent and there was nothing on record to show that the petitioners work and conduct was not above average, even then he was prematurely retired in contravention of statutory directions issued under the Government Order dated 26th November, 1969. It was further urged that at the time the petitioner completed 55 years of age an assessment of his work and conduct was made by the authorities concerned for retaining him in service till he attained the age of 58 years. The Excise Commissioner as well as the Secretary of the Excise Department on an overall assessment of the petitioners work and performance for the last ten years recommended that the petitioner be retained in service till he attained the age of 58 years, the Secretary of the Appointment Department also agreed with the proposal but the then Minister of Excise Sri Swami Prasad Singh disagreed with their recommendation and passed the impugned order arbitrarily on account of mala fides. 4. 4. Sri S.C. Budhwar, learned Standing Counsel contended that under Fundamental Rule 56, the State Government has absolute right to retire a Government servant after he completes the age of 55 years without assigning reasons and its decision to compulsorily retire a Government servant is presumed to have been taken in public interest, hence the impugned order is not justiciable. It was further urged that on an overall assessment of the petitioners work and conduct for the last ten years of his service the State Government was of the opinion that his work and conduct was not above average, thereupon it formed an opinion that it was in public interest to retire him prematurely. Allegations of mala fides made against the Excise Minister have been denied by Sri Swami Prasad Singh who has filed his own affidavit in reply. 5. Fundamental Rule 56 (a) lays down that the age of superannuation of a Government servant is 58 years but the appointing authority may at any time without assigning any reasons require a 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 confers a right to the Government servant also to retire from service voluntarily after giving three months notice to the appointing authority on attaining the age of 55 years. The first Explanation to the rule lays down that the decision of the appointing authority under the first proviso to require the Government servant to retire compulsorily shall be taken by the appointing authority if it forms an opinion that the retirement of the Government servant is in public interest. The State Government is empowered to issue from time to time executive instructions laying down guiding principles in that behalf, which are statutory in nature. Explanation II further lays down that the decision to compulsorily retire a Government servant in public interest, shall be presumed to have been taken in public interest unless contrary is proved. On 26th November, `1969, the State Government issued an order laying down principles in this regard, a cook of which has been filed as Annexure to the petition. Explanation II further lays down that the decision to compulsorily retire a Government servant in public interest, shall be presumed to have been taken in public interest unless contrary is proved. On 26th November, `1969, the State Government issued an order laying down principles in this regard, a cook of which has been filed as Annexure to the petition. The instructions contained in this order are statutory in nature which lay down guiding principles and criteria for the exercise of power under Rule 56 in retiring a Government servant who may have attained the age of 55 years. Condition No. 5 of the Government Order lays down if the work and conduct of a Government servant during the last ten years of his service is not above average, his premature retirement would be in public interest. The Government Order lays down other principles also but I need not refer to them as condition No. 5 of the order is relevant for the purposes of the instant case. 6. It is true that a Government servant has a right to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation which is 58 years but the Rule confers power on the appointing authority to retire a Government servant compulsorily on his attaining the age of 55 years. Such an order of compulsory retirement does not cast any stigma on him and no reasons are required to be stated. But the order of compulsory retirement must be passed in accordance with the Rule and the statutory instructions issued thereunder. The second Explanation to R. 56 (a) requires that the order of compulsory retirement should be passed in public interest. Once an order of retirement is passed in accordance with the Rule in public interest the Courts of law cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the State Government or the appointing authority and the order is not open to judicial review. But it is well settled principle that if the power to retire a Government servant compulsorily from service is not exercised bona fide or if the opinion is not formed bona fide in public interest, the order is open to challenge before Courts of law. But it is well settled principle that if the power to retire a Government servant compulsorily from service is not exercised bona fide or if the opinion is not formed bona fide in public interest, the order is open to challenge before Courts of law. In Union of India v. J.N. Sinha, AIR 1971 SC 40 : (1971 Lab IC 8), the Supreme Court laid down that it is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the .requisite opinion was not formed bona fide in compulsorily retiring a Government servant under Rule 56 or that the decision was based on collateral grounds or that it was an arbitrary decision. It is further well settled that even an administrative order of the State Government based on subjective decision is open to challenge in a Court of law on the ground that the opinion was formed arbitrarily or capriciously on irrelevant considerations. If the Court is satisfied that no reasonable person could have on the material present before the Government formed the opinion that the retirement of the Government servant was in public interest its decision would be arbitrary and capricious. (See State of Maharashtra v. B.K. Takkamore, AIR 1967 SC 1353 ). 7. As already noted the rule read with the statutory instructions issued by the Government contemplates that if an order of compulsory retirement is passed on an overall assessment of 10 years of his service the order shall be deemed to be in public interest. But the order can be passed only after the appointing authority forms a bona fide opinion that the work and conduct of the Government servant during the last 10 years of service was not above average. The question then arises as to whether in the instant case the decision of the State Government that the petitioners work and conduct during the last ten years of his service was not above average is arbitrary. The question then arises as to whether in the instant case the decision of the State Government that the petitioners work and conduct during the last ten years of his service was not above average is arbitrary. The petitioner has asserted that the received several awards during his service career and he was allowed to cross efficiency bar in 1969 and when he attained the age of 55 years the Excise Commissioner considered the petitioner's work and conduct and on an assessment of his ten years, record of service he found that the petitioner's work and conduct was above average, thereupon he recommended to the State Government that the petitioner be allowed to continue upto the age of 58 years. The Secretary of the Excise Department as well as the Secretary of the Appointment Department agreed with the recommendations of the Excise Commissioner. These allegations are contained in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the petition which are not denied in the counter-affidavit filed by Bhagwan Singh Under Secretary to the Excise Department of the Government. It is, however, asserted in the counter-affidavit that when the petitioners file was placed before the Minister of Excise Sri Swami Prasad Singh, he looked into the entire record of the petitioner and thereafter he was of the opinion that the petitioners work and conduct was not above average and that his retirement was in public interest. Thereafter the petitioners file was placed before the Chief Minister, he also agreed with the opinion of the Excise Minister. It is thus clear that even though the Excise Commissioner. Secretary of the Excise Department and Secretary of the Appointment Department were of the opinion that on the material on record the petitioners work and conduct during the last ten years was above average and he was fit to be retained in service till the age of superannuation, even then the Minister for Excise did not agree with that opinion. The Excise Minister and the Chief Minister had no doubt final say in the matter. The Excise Minister and the Chief Minister had no doubt final say in the matter. If they bona fide form the opinion that having regard to the petitioners work and conduct during the last ten years of his service he was not fit to be retained in service, then whether the opinion of the Excise Minister and the Chief Minister which was ultimately the opinion of the State Government, was formed bona fide which could be formed by any reasonable person on the material on record. In order to determine this question, it is necessary to consider the character roll entries of the petitioner. 8. Learned Standing Counsel has placed before me the petitioner's character roll entries for the last ten years from 1962-63 to 1972-73. They are as follows: - 1962-63 An intelligent and hardworking officer who discharged his duties very well. While maintaining a very good standard of work all round, he achieved the best results at auctions. His relations with the staff and the public were excellent. Certified that nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri Surendra Nath Verma. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity. Sd/- B.B. Sahi. 20-3-64. 1963-64 He has fully justified during the year my assessment of his work and conduct made last year. An all round very good officer. Certified that nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri Surendra Nath Verma. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity. Sd/- B. B. Sahi. 8-9-1964. 1964-65 A very good officer who performed his duties well during the year. Popular with subordinates and colleagues. Touring and inspections adequate. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri S. N. Verma. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity. Sd/- B.B. Sahi. 1965-66 A quiet and sober officer 1966-67 who did well in both the (Up to Nov) charges. Touring and inspections adequate. An all round good officer. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri Surendra Nath Verma. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity. Sd/- B.S. Seth. 1966-67 I endorse the above (Dec. to March) remarks by Sri B.S. Seth. Sd/- D. B. Mehtra. Touring and inspections adequate. An all round good officer. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri Surendra Nath Verma. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity. Sd/- B.S. Seth. 1966-67 I endorse the above (Dec. to March) remarks by Sri B.S. Seth. Sd/- D. B. Mehtra. 1967-68 An experienced and intelligent Officer with good executive ability. His work and conduct have been good. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri S. N. Verma. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity. Sd/- S K. Chaudhri. 25-5-1968. 1968-69 An experienced and intelligent officer. Work and conduct satisfactory. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri S. N. Verma. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity. Sd/- S. K. Chaudhri. 13-6-1969. Sd/- S K. Chaudhri. 25-5-1968. 1968-69 An experienced and intelligent officer. Work and conduct satisfactory. Nothing has come to my knowledge which casts any reflection on the integrity of Sri S. N. Verma. His general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity. Sd/- S. K. Chaudhri. 13-6-1969. " 1969&70 %& ,d vuqHkoh] cqf)eku vkSj lk/kuiw.kZ vf/kdkjhA o"kZ esa dk;Z vkSj O;gogkj lUrks"ktudA bUgksaus vius cqjs LokLFk~ ds gksus ij Hkh cgqr ifjJe fd;kA izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd esjh tkudkjh esa dksbZ ckr ugha vk;h gS ftlls Jh0 lqjsUnz ukFk oekZ dh bZekunkjh ij dksbZ lansg fd;k tk;A tu lk/kkj.k esa budh bZekunkjh lEcU/kh vPNh [;kfr gSA vr,o eSa budh bZekunkjh izekf.kr djrk gwaA g0oh0,l0 dVkjk 1970&71 ,d vuqHkoh] uez cqf}ekuu rFkk lk/kuiw.kZ vf/kdkjhA budk dk;Z o"kZ esa larks"ktud jgkA izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd esjh tkudkjh esa dksbZ ckr ugha vk;h gS ftlls Jh0 lqjsUnz ukFk oekZ dh bZekunkjh ij dksbZ lansg fd;k tk;A tu lk/kkj.k esa budh bZekunkjh lEcU/kh vPNh [;kfr gS vr,o esa budh bZekunkjh izekf.kr djrk gwaA g0oh0,e0 1971&72 Jh0 oekZ ,d vuqHkoh ifjJeh rFkk dk;Zdq'kG vf/kdkjh gS bUgsa foHkkxh; fu;eksa dk vPNk Kku gSA dkuiwj pktZ esa bUgksaus fu/kkZfjr la[;k ls dkQh vf/kd nkSjk fd;kA buds NqV~Vh pys tkus rFkk chp esa gks LFkkukUrj.k ds dkj.k budk fujh{k.k dk;Z fu/kkZfjr ls dqN de jgk vkcdkjh vuqKkfi;ksa ds fo:) bUgksaus dkQh idM+ /kdM+ dhA budh ns[kjs[k esa v/khuLFk LVkQ us xr o"kZ ls vf/kd vfHk;ksx idM+s vkSj bUgksaus deZpkfj;ksa dh dbZ nfo'kksa dh cM+h ;kstuk cukbZ vkSj muesa Hkkx fy;kA ns'kh 'kjkc dk miHkksx Bhd jgkA eksgu ehfdUl eksgj uxj esa budk dk;Z Bhd jgkA vkcdkjh foHkkx ds miea=h th us mUuko fMfLVyjh ij Nkik ekjk Fkk vkSj dqN vfu;ferrk;sa idM+h FkhA ml flGflGs esa buds fo:) lrdZrk foHkkx nqckjk tkap py jgh gS ij esjh tkudkjh esa buds fo:) ,slh dksbZ ckr ugha vk;h gSa ftlls buds lR;fu"Bk ij izHkko iM+rk gksA vr,o esa budh lR;fu"Bk izekf.kr djrk gwWaA g0oh0,l0 dVkjk 3&8&72 1972&73 ,d mPpdksfV ds lw> cw> okys rFkk fo'okl ;ksX; vf/kdkjh tks cgqr ifjJeh gS vkSj ftu ij gj izdkj ls Hkjkslk fd;k tk ldrk gSA dk;Z gj n`f"V ls vkSlr ;s cgqr mWapk (Sic) okyks ls lEcU/k vPNs jgsA foHkkx esa bZekunkjh dh [;kfr vPNh jghA izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd esjh tkudkjh esa ,slh dksbZ ckr ugha vk;h gS fd ftlls Jh0 lqjsUnz ukFk oekZ dh bZekunkjh ij lansg fd;k tk;A lR;fu"Bk izekf.krA g0v0uk0 lsxy 1975&74 bUgs lsok ls fuo`Rr dj fn;k x;k Fkk Gsfdu ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds LFkxu vkns'k nqckjk bUgsa lsok esa iqu% fy;k x;k Gsfdu buls dksbZ dk;Z ugha fy;k x;kA vr,o eSa buds dk;Z rFkk lR;fu"Bk ij dksbZ vk[;k ugha ns ldrk gwWaA g0,u0c0 GkG 31&7&74" The above entries show that the petitioner's work and conduct was highly commended by the Excise Commissioner and no adverse entry was ever awarded to him nor any defect in his work or conduct was pointed out during the last ten years of his service. The totality of the entries for the last ten years indicate that the petitioners work and conduct was excellent and no rational person could on the above entries arrive to the conclusion that the petitioner's work and conduct or performance in service was not above average during the last ten years of his service. 9. Learned Standing Counsel, however, urged that the entries relating to the years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72 were of average nature which indicate that the petitioner's work and performance was not above average. I do not find any merit in this contention. In the year 1968-69 the Excise Commissioner observed that the petitioner was an experienced and intelligent officer, his work and conduct was satisfactory. Similarly in the year 1969-70 the Excise Commissioner observed that the petitioner was an experienced, wise and resourceful officer, his work and conduct was satisfactory and in spite of his ill-health he worked hard. Similarly for the year 1970-71 the Excise Commissioner observed that the petitioner was humble, wise and a resourceful officer and his work in the year was satisfactory. These three entries read as a whole make it amply clear that the Excise Commissioner highly commended the petitioners work and conduct. The term "satisfactory" as used in the context of petitioners experience, wisdom and resourcefulness clearly demonstrates that the petitioner's work and conduct was much above average. None of these entries show that the petitioner's work and conduct was not above average. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. S.M. Banerji, (1974 All LJ 238 : (1974 Lab IC 472) held - "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 Rules 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. 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 simplicities. it may not convey that sense. The word `satisfactory' is not a term of art. It is pragmatic. 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. " After making the aforesaid observation the Bench considered the character roll entries of last ten years of S. M. Banerii and held that the order of compulsory retirement issued under R. 56 (a) was arbitrary as no reasonable person could come to the conclusion to which the State Government arrived on the material on record before it. The term `satisfactory' was also held to have flexible meaning depending upon the facts and the context in which the term may be used. 11. Applying the test laid down by the Division Bench it is clear that the term "satisfactory" occurring in the character roll entries of the petitioner for the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 indicates that the petitioner's work and conduct was above average. For the year 1971-72 the Excise Commissioner observed that the petitioner was an experienced hard working and expert officer. He has good knowledge of the departmental rules. His work in detecting excise offences was highly appreciated. The learned Standing Counsel. however, placed reliance on the last portion of the entry which stated that the Deputy Minister of Excise had made a surprise inspection of Unnao distillery and had found certain irregularities therein and in that connection Vigilance Department was holding an enquiry. The Excise Commissioner, however, observed that nothing had come to his knowledge to create any doubt or suspicion against the integrity of the petitioner. The Excise Commissioner, however, observed that nothing had come to his knowledge to create any doubt or suspicion against the integrity of the petitioner. The petitioner has categorically stated that there were no irregularities and if there be any, the petitioner was not directly responsible for the same as it was the duty of the Inspector posted there who was looking after these matters and further even if there were any irregularities the same were not proved and no findings recorded against the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel concedes that an Enquiry into the matter is still pending It appears that for this reason the Excise Commissioner did not award any adverse entry against the petitioner, instead he merely referred to the complaints of irregularity in the Unnao distillery, he did not assign any blame to the petitioner, on the other hand the Excise Commissioner highly commended the petitioner about his experience. hard work and knowledge of the departmental rules The entry read as a whole does not indicate any defect in the petitioner's work and conduct. Coming to the entry of 1972-73 it is clear that the petitioner was paid high compliments by the Excise Commissioner. He observed that the petitioner was an officer of great sagacity who was dependable, competent and hardworking officer and he could be relied in every way, his work and conduct was much above average. In the department he was famous for his honesty. This entry in my opinion goes a long was to show that the petitioner's work and conduct was much above average. 12. The above analysis of the last 10 years' character roll entries of the petitioner shows that the petitioner's work and conduct was highly appreciated by the Excise Commissioner and it was only in the year 1971-72 that a reference was made to certain irregularities at the Unnao Distillery but no adverse remarks were made in the petitioner's character roll nor any role was assigned to him. 13. The statutory instructions contained in paragraph 5 of the Government order dated 26th November, 1969 enjoin that in considering the question of retirement of a Government servant prematurely the record of service of the Government servant for the past ten years should be taken into account. 13. The statutory instructions contained in paragraph 5 of the Government order dated 26th November, 1969 enjoin that in considering the question of retirement of a Government servant prematurely the record of service of the Government servant for the past ten years should be taken into account. This clearly implies that an overall assessment of the ten years work and conduct should be scrutinised in considering the question of compulsory retirement of a Government servant and the totality of over all performance of the Government servant during the last ten years of his service should be taken into account. An isolated entry of one year should not override other highly commendable entries of nine years. As discussed above in the instant case the last ten years' entries of the petitioner's character roll clearly indicated that the petitioner's work and conduct was above average. 14. In view of the above discussion I have no doubt in my mind that on a careful consideration of the petitioner's work and conduct during that last ten years of his service no reasonable person could arrive to the conclusion that the petition's work and conduct was not above average. The opinion formed by the State Government was clearly arbitrary which cannot be sustained in law. 15. Since the petition is liable to succeed on the question discussed above I do not consider it necessary to consider the question of mala fides. 16. In the result I allow the petition and Quash the impugned order dated 24th March, 1973. The Petitioner is entitled to his costs.