K. N. SINGH, J. This petition is directed against the order of the State Government dated October 19, 1973, retiring the petitioner prematurely by giving him three months salary in lieu of period of notice under Note I to Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulation. The petitioner joined service of the State Government as Deputy Jailor in 1944, In 1958 he was promoted to the post of Jailor, later on he was confirmed on that post in 1967. A Departmental Selection Committee constituted by the Public Service Commission selected the petitioner for promotion on ad hoc basis for officiating on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail. In 1971 the petitioner was selected for temporary and officiating appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail. For sometime from August 6, 1971 to September 6, 1972, the petitioner officiated as Superintendent of Central Jail. While the petitioner was posted as officiating Superintendent of the District Jail, Bareilly, the State Government issued the order dated October 19, 1973, retiring him prematurely under Note I to Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the State Government issued the impugned order arbitrarily without taking into consideration the relevant matters pertaining to the petitioners service. His service record had all along been efficient and he earned no adverse entries after 1968 even then the State Government retired the petitioner compulsorily. On behalf of the State Government it was asserted that in the month of June, 1973, a Screening Committee was constituted by the Government to look into the service record of all Government servants whose appointing authority was the Government with a view to judge their suitability for retention in Government service after they had attained the age of 50 years or completed the qualifying service. The Screening Committee consisted of Home Secretary, Inspector General of Prisons, Director of Information U. P. and Special Secretary, Home Department, as its members. The Screening Committee examined the petitioners service record including his character roll entries for the year 1961 to 1971. Thereafter the Committee made its recommendation to the Government that the petitioner be retired compulsorily from service. The State Government considered the recommendations of the Committee along with the petitioners service record and thereupon it born fide formed the opinion that the petitioners continuance in service was not in public interest. Thereafter the Committee made its recommendation to the Government that the petitioner be retired compulsorily from service. The State Government considered the recommendations of the Committee along with the petitioners service record and thereupon it born fide formed the opinion that the petitioners continuance in service was not in public interest. It was only thereafter that the State Government in exercise of its powers under Note I to Article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations issued the impugned order. The learned Standing Counsel drew my attention to Annexure A-l and A-2 to the counter-affidavit of Kashi Ram Gupta filed on behalf of the State Government. On a perusal of the same I find that during the last ten years of his service the petitioner earned four adverse and censure entries. In 1963-64, he was awarded the following entry: " His standard of work is poor. He takes things easy and seems to be careless. " He was warned for utterly failing in performing his normal duties. In 1967, he was again awarded an adverse entry for delaying the pension papers of employees of the District Jail, Gonda. Again in the year 1967 he was awarded another censure entry for failure to comply with paragraph 20 of the Jail Manual and a Circular letter as he did not call the Jail Doctor to attend to an under trial prisoner who had 28 injuries and who died within 2-112 hours of his admission in the jail. In 1968 the petitioner was again awarded two censure entries. In addition to these adverse and censure entries the petitioner was found to be an average officer in 1962-63 and an officer of average ability. In 1964-65 he was awarded the following entry; an officer of average ability. Reported to be easy-going. Should be able to do much better if he takes greater interest in his work. In 1967-68 he was again reported to be an average worker. It was or. the basis of this material that the Screening Committee as well as the State Government formed the opinion that the petitioners retention in service was not in public interest. The material on record was sufficient for the formation of the requisite opinion. The decision of the State Government cannot be characterised arbitrary or capricious. It was or. the basis of this material that the Screening Committee as well as the State Government formed the opinion that the petitioners retention in service was not in public interest. The material on record was sufficient for the formation of the requisite opinion. The decision of the State Government cannot be characterised arbitrary or capricious. It was then urged that the petitioner earned no adverse entries after 1968 which indicated that he had improved his work and conduct. The State Government misdirected itself in placing reliance on the earlier entries instead of considering the petitioners performance in service in recent years. There is no dispute that the petitioners work and conduct was satisfactory after 1968 and he was awarded to no adverse entries after 1968, but the fact remains that the petitioner had earned adverse entries and he had been censured for more than once, the details of which have been noted earlier. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the opinion formed by the State Government either on the adequacy or inadequacy of the material or on the question that the State Government should have given more weight to the entries of recent years. A similar contention was repelled by a Division Bench of this Court in State of U. P. v. S. M. Banerji 1974 A. L. J. 239. The State Government while considering the question of petitioners retention in service was entitled to take into account the adverse entries awarded against the petitioner even prior to 1968. Learned counsel then urged that since the petitioner was promoted to the higher post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail in 1970 and further as he was selected by the Public Service Commission for temporary and officiating appointment in a regular manner on the post of Deputy Superintendent in 1971, adverse entries if any prior to that period stood wiped off. He placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of U. P. v. Dr. R. S. Gupta Special Appeal No. 82 of 1975, decided on May 7, 1975. In that case, Dr. R. S. Gupta had been promoted to the post of Chief Medical Officer only a few months prior to the issue of the order of compulsory retirement. He had been further allowed to cross efficiency bar. The contention raised on behalf of the State that merely because Dr. In that case, Dr. R. S. Gupta had been promoted to the post of Chief Medical Officer only a few months prior to the issue of the order of compulsory retirement. He had been further allowed to cross efficiency bar. The contention raised on behalf of the State that merely because Dr. R. S. Gupta was promoted and he was allowed to cross efficiency bar it did not mean that the adverse entries had been wiped off. The adverse entries which were taken into account in issuing the order were considered by the Division Bench and found to be innocuous in nature. The case of Dr. Gupta is no authority for the proposition that when a Government servant is promoted to officiate on a higher post, adverse entries, if any, awarded to him prior to his promotion would automatically stand wiped off. In that case the Division Bench scrutinised the adverse entries and thereupon it held that the nature of the entries was not damaging to the work or conduct of Dr. Gupta. There is no such situation in the present case. The argument was that since the petitioner was selected for promotion to officiate on a higher post, it must be held that earlier adverse entries were of no consequence. There may be some merit in the contention if promotion is made on the basis of merit and merit alone, but in the instant case there is no dispute that the petitioner was selected for officiating appointment on the post of Deputy Superintendent on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. In the Government service whenever selection is made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit the senior person has a right of promotion in a mechanical manner unless his work and conduct is of such a nature that he is declared unfit for promotion. Merit or efficiency do not play any vital part in the process of selection, instead seniority plays the dominating role, whereas in the case of selection on merit, seniority does not play any vital role, instead merit, efficiency and suitability of a person plays the vital part. Merit or efficiency do not play any vital part in the process of selection, instead seniority plays the dominating role, whereas in the case of selection on merit, seniority does not play any vital role, instead merit, efficiency and suitability of a person plays the vital part. The adverse entries, if any, against a Government servant would certainly affect his chances of selection if the selection is made on the basis of merit but the same do not affect the chances of selection if the selection is made on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. The petitioner who was senior, was promoted to officiate on the post of Deputy Superintendent, his promotion had nothing to do with his merit or efficiency; consequently the petitioners contention that the earlier adverse entries if any stood wiped off cannot be accepted. It was then urged that the State Government applied incorrect criteria in forming its opinion to retire the petitioner prematurely. According to the petitioner, the criteria is laid down in clause (3) of paragraph 109 of the Manual of Government Orders but the same was not followed, instead the petitioner was retired merely on the ground that his retention in service was not in public interest. Paragraph 109 lays down the procedure required to be followed in preparing list of Government servants for a premature retirement under Articles 465 and 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations. It lays down that Heads of Departments should submit a list of officials to the Government who may be completing 25 years of qualifying service during the year and the list should be submitted at least three months before the date of retirement, the list should be in two parts, one for gazetted officers and the other for non-gazetted officers containing necessary particulars, it should contain reasons for retention or non-retention in Government service. Clause (3) lays down that the recommendation for retirement should unhesitatingly be made in the case of officials whose integrity has been subject to doubt. It further lays down that Government servants who may have completed 25 years of qualifying service, if found chronic inefficiency or dull mediocrity or outlived their usefulness be retired and they should not be allowed to continue in service. It further lays down that Government servants who may have completed 25 years of qualifying service, if found chronic inefficiency or dull mediocrity or outlived their usefulness be retired and they should not be allowed to continue in service. It was urged that the petitioners integrity had never been doubted, further there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner was guilty of chronic ineffciency or dull mediocrity or that he had cultivated his usefulness. Since none of the four defects were available against the petitioner, he could not be retired by the Government in exercise of its powers under Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations. I have carefully considered the submission, but I do not find any merit in it. Paragraph 109 of the Manual of Government Orders is not a statutory provision. It contains administrative directions which were issued under the Government Order dated May 3, 1949. If the State Government issued the impugned orders even in violation of the said directions, they cannot be declared illegal as these directions are not enforceable in a court of law. The criteria laid down in clause (3) of paragraph 109 is illustrative. It is not exhaustive. Note I to Article 465 confers wide power on the Government to retire a Government servant prematurely if it considers necessary to do so in public interest. The import of the term public interest in relation to public administration is very wide. The Government may decide to energies its machinery and to weed out inefficient, docile or average officers. There can be no dispute that retention of a Government servant having doubtful integrity or who may be dull or may be chronic inefficient will not be in public interest. But these are not the only grounds to subserve the public interest. The Government servant may be honest, but he may be lacking in other respects, It is difficult to prepare an exhaustive list of the grounds on which the question of retirement of a Government servant may be considered in public interest. The concept of public interest may itself change with passage of time and need of administration. Much startling changes have taken place since 1949, the scope of public interest in Government service has drastically changed. Public interest cannot be measured merely on the four grounds mentioned in the Government Order of 1949. The concept of public interest may itself change with passage of time and need of administration. Much startling changes have taken place since 1949, the scope of public interest in Government service has drastically changed. Public interest cannot be measured merely on the four grounds mentioned in the Government Order of 1949. Article 465 was amended in 1973, the amended Article conferred power on the State Government to issue statutory instructions for the guidance of the subordinate authorities. There was, however, no such provision in Article 465 prior to its amendment in November, 1973. The Government Order dated May 3, 1949, on the basis of which paragraph 109 of the Government Manual is based was not statutory, instead it contained administrative directions for the guidance of the subordinate authorities. Moreover Article 465, as it stood in 1949 was drastically amended in 1964 and after the amendment the efficacy of the Government Order dated May 3, 1949, was lost. For this reason also the criteria laid down in clause (3) of paragraph 109 of the Manual of Government Orders is not relevant for determining the validity of the impugned order. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order was passed mala fide. The material facts in support of the plea of mala fides are contained in paragraphs 100 to 104, of the petition. The petitioner has alleged that S. C. Goel who was member of the Screening Committee was biased and prejudiced against the petitioner. For some period he was Inspector General for Prisons and during that period he entertained prejudice against the petitioner. During the deliberations of the meeting of the Screening Committee Sri Goel proposed the petitioners retirement from service on the basis of the adverse entries awarded to him prior to 1967. It was further alleged that originally there was a proposal to retire the petitioner by giving him three months notice, but later on this order was changed and Sri Goel obtained an order from the Government for petitioners premature retirement immediately without giving notice so that the petitioner could be relieved of his office at once on the service of the order. Sri Goel adopted this method to dispair the petitioners from getting change of retention service through representation during the period of notice. Sri Goel, respondent No. 6, has filed his own affidavit denying the allegations of mala fides. Sri Goel adopted this method to dispair the petitioners from getting change of retention service through representation during the period of notice. Sri Goel, respondent No. 6, has filed his own affidavit denying the allegations of mala fides. He has denied the allegations of prejudice made against him. He has asserted that he has no prejudice or malice against the petitioner. While taking part in the deliberations of the Screening Committee he expressed his opinion on the basis of the petitioners service record in an honest manner. The allegation that the deliberately got the order changed to deprive the petitioner of an opportunity of making representation is again denied. Since the allegations of mala fide have been denied and the petitioner has failed to place any material before the Court to support the plea of male fides it is difficult to uphold the plea of mala fides. Moreover, the assertions contained in the petition do not make out any case of mala fides. The Screening Committee was constituted by several high Government Officers and the record on the basis of which they recommended the petitioners case for premature retirement has been placed before the Court. On a careful consideration of that material it is not possible to accept the petitioners contention that his record of service was good or that the impugned order was issued by the State Government due to the malice of respondent No. 6. In view of the above discussions, I find no infirmity in the order of the State Government retiring the petitioner compulsorily. I, therefore, dismiss the petition with costs. .