JUDGMENT K. N. Singh, J. The petitioner joined Government service as Deputy Jailor in November, 1942. He was granted promotion from time to time. In May, 1971, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent. He was to complete 55 years of age on July 4, 1973, but before he could complete 55 years of age, his service record and character roll were examined by the State Government, found the petitioner's work and conduct above average. Consequently, it issued an order on April 30, 1973, permitting the petitioner to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years. The petitioner thereafter continued in service as Superintendent of Jail. He was, however, compulsorily retired from service by an order of the State Government dated January 9, 1975, issued under Fundamental Rule 56. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order of compulsory retirement dated January 9, 1975. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that once the petitioner's work and conduct was scrutinised and order was issued by the State Government retaining the petitioner in service beyond the age of 55 years, he could not be compulsorily retired unless his work and conduct deteriorated after his retention in service. There was no such deterioration in the petitioner's work and conduct. The State Government reviewed its earlier decision and the Screening Committee again considered the petitioner's ten years record of service and recommended that the petitioner's work and conduct was not beyond average even though there was no fresh material against the petitioner. Under Fundamental Rule 56, as amended from time to time, and as applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh, the age of superannuation of a Government servant is 58 years, but the Government is empowered to review the case of a Government servant at the stage when he attains the age of 55 years. If on a review of his work and conduct the State Government or the appointing authority is satisfied that the work and conduct of the Government servant is not above average, it is empowered to retire the Government servant compulsorily by giving him three months notice or pay in lieu thereof, but in a case where the State Government forms opinion that the work and conduct of the Government servant is above average it may retain the Government servant in service. Once a Government servant is retained in service beyond the age of 55 years after his work and conduct is considered at the age of 55 years, he acquires a right to continue in Government service. The State Government has no doubt power to reconsider the work and conduct of the Government servant even after the retention of the Government servant. If on a reconsideration the State Government finds that after his retention in service beyond the age of 55 years the work and conduct of the Government was not satisfactory or that there was deterioration in his work, it is always open to it to retire the Government servant compulsorily in accordance with the Fundamental Rule 56. The State Government has issued instructions under its order dated November, 1969, laying down principles required to be followed in considering the question of compulsory retirement or retention of a public servant on his attaining the age of 55 years. The conditions laid down therein are statutory as the same have been issued under the statutory requirement of the Explanation to Fundamental Rule 56. The Government order lays down that the case of every Government servant should be considered at least six months prior to his attaining the age of 55 years and a decision should be taken as to whether the Government servant is to be retained in service or he is to be retired compulsorily but in a case where no such decision is taken due to some unavoidable reasons no right is conferred on the Government servant to continue in service and it is always open to the Government to consider his case and take necessary decision. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the said Government order lay down the criteria which should be applied in considering the question of compulsory retirement of a servant. According to it, if the integrity certificate of a Government servant is withheld even once during the last ten years of his service then the Government servant should not be retained in service and further if the work and conduct of the Government servant is not found above average during the last ten years of his service, in that case the retirement of Government servant would be in public interest. Paragraph 6 of the Government order is relevant for purposes of the present case. Paragraph 6 of the Government order is relevant for purposes of the present case. It lays down that the case of a Government servant who is allowed to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years after review and consideration of his work and conduct, should not be reconsidered or reviewed again for retiring him compulsorily before attaining the age of 58 years, unless it is found thatafter his retention in service beyond the age of 55 years his work and conduct deteriorated and that it would be in public interest to retire him compulsorily from service. It is thus clear that once a Government servant is allowed to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years after review of his work and conduct it is not open to the State Government or the appointing authority to review its decision or to retire the petitioner compulsorily in the absence of any fresh material. In the instant case, the petitioner attained the age of 55 years on July 4, 1973. It is admitted in paragraph 7 of the counteraffidavit of Bhairab Datt Khulve, Upper Division Assistant in the Home (Jails) Section 1 of the Civil Secretariat, that before the petitioner completed the age of 55 years his service record was screened and his work and conduct was found satisfactory and the State Government formed opinion that it was in public interest to retain the petitioner in service beyond the age of 55 years and thereafter as the order dated April 30, 1973, Annexure III to the petition, was issued. By that order the State Government informed the petitioner that the Governor had permitted him to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years. After his retention in service the petitioner was allowed to cross Efficiency Bar on August 30, 1973, at the stage of Rs.550/. The petitioner was not awarded any adverse entry thereafter and there was no deterioration in his work or conduct. The learned Standing Counsel, however, referred to an alleged adverse entry of 197273. The entry is to the following effect: "An experienced and intelligent officer with an impressive personality, who has the ability to administer his jail properly. Unfortunately, however, his control over the jail administration and his supervision where found somewhat slack and ineffective. Agricultural production needed more attention, as also the food of prisoners. There was one escape from outside the jail. Unfortunately, however, his control over the jail administration and his supervision where found somewhat slack and ineffective. Agricultural production needed more attention, as also the food of prisoners. There was one escape from outside the jail. His relations with colleagues were satisfactory." The above entry was for the period from April 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973. This entry was present on the petitioner's character roll at the time the State Government took decision to retain him in service. The State Government had considered that entry and thereafter it had issued orders on April 30, 1973, for the petitioner's retention in service. Thus even on the face of the entry of 197273, the State Government had formed opinion that the petitioner's retention was in public interest. Further the entry for the year 197273 does not speak of petitioner's work for any period after his retention in service. Therefore that entry could not be taken into account to form opinion that petitioner's work had deteriorated after his retention in service. The petitioner was awarded the following entry for the year 197374: "An intelligent officer, who showed initiative and administrative ability in dealing with the mass influx of hydel department stayagrahis in his jail. In other respects, his performance was average, except that there was some improvement in the production of vegetables." A careful analysis of the above entry shows that there is no reflection on the petitioner's work nor it indicates that the petitioner's work and conduct had deteriorated; on the other hand, it indicates that he was an intelligent officer who had exhibited administrative ability in dealing with the mass influx of hydel department satyagrahis in his jail. This entry cannot by any standard be characterised as adverse. Moreover, the impugned order has not been passed on the basis of the aforesaid entry as is clear from paragraph 13 of the counteraffidavit which states that the Screening Committee considered the service record of the petitioner for the last ten years and thereupon it recommended to the Government that the petitioner's work and conduct for the last ten years was not extraordinarily good so as to allow him to be retained in service. On the recommendation of the Screening Committee the State Government issued the impugned order. On the recommendation of the Screening Committee the State Government issued the impugned order. The counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the State Government does not set out any case that the Screening Committee or the State Government considered the petitioner's work or conduct after his retention in service and found the same unsatisfactory or that there was deterioration in his efficiency after his retention in service. The petitioner's work and conduct for the last ten years of his service had already been considered earlier and he was retained in service by an express order. Thereupon is was not open to the Government to form a different opinion on the same material. There is no averment in the counteraffidavit nor any adverse entry has been placed before me to show that after the petitioner's retention in service his work and conduct had deteriorated to such an extent that his retention in Government service was not in public interest. In R. S. Saxena v. State of U. P. (1) I took similar view that once a Government servant is retained in service after considering his service record for the last ten years, that decision could not be reviewed unless there was fresh material before the State Government. The view taken by me was upheld in State of U. P. v. R. S. Saxena (2). The principle laid down in R. S. Saxena's case is fully applicable to the instant case. I, therefore, hold that the impugned order dated January 9, 1975 is illegal. In the result I allow the petition and quash the impugned order dated January 9, 1975. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.