JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - This petition is directed against the order dated 6-11-1976 passed by the Services Tribunal rejecting the claim petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23-5-1975 retiring him compulsorily from Government service. He was appointed as Naib Tahsildar on 11th June 1942 and was confirmed as Deputy Collector on 29-12-1969. He was to attain the age of fifty five years on 1-7-1974. Six months prior to this date the petitioner's character roll and overall performance was scrutinised and it is alleged in paragraph 16 of 1he writ petition that ' the Government decided to continue him in service in public interest", and he was posted on a special post as the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). He was awarded first prise for Small Saving Drive during 74-75 and was given a certificate by the Collector on 14-3-1975. On 11-6-1975 his services were appreciated in wheat procurement drive. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government these allegations are not denied but the basis to review and retire the petitioner prematurely is disclosed in paragraph 18 thus: "It is true that the petitioner's case was considered in August 1974 and he was' allowed to continue beyond the age of 55 years. Subsequently, however the petitioner was again awarded adverse entry for the year 1974-75 with a view to tone up the administration of the State and chop off dead wood from the administration a decision was taken by Government to appoint High Power Screening Committee in 1975 for evaluating the assessment and performance of the officers who had crossed the age of 50 or 55 years more vigorously and considering whether their retention in service would be in public interest. The High Power Screening Committee consisted of very senior and responsible officers of the Government. The said Committee considered and assessed performance of all the officers and came to the conclusion that it was in public interest that the petitioner be retired from the service. The recommendation of the High Power Committee was accepted by the Government and upon acceptance of the said recommendation the impugned order of retirement of the petitioner was passed." 2. The said Committee considered and assessed performance of all the officers and came to the conclusion that it was in public interest that the petitioner be retired from the service. The recommendation of the High Power Committee was accepted by the Government and upon acceptance of the said recommendation the impugned order of retirement of the petitioner was passed." 2. The Tribunal held that the G. O. dated 26-11-1969 which prescribed the criteria that if integrity certificate of a Government servant is withheld even once in ten years or if his work and conduct is not found above average during last ten years then the retirement should be in public interest stood superseded by amendment of Fundamental Rule 56 by U. P. Act No. 24 of 75 and therefore the Government was competent to retire the petitioner prematurely 'if it appeared to the said authority to be in the public interest.' It also found no substance in the contention that in view of G. O., dated 26-8-1975 issued by the Government after amendment of Rule 56 there was a bar to reconsidering the cases of Government servants about whose retention, in service, a decision had already been taken. The plea of discrimination was repelled on the theory of absolute discretion with right to pick and choose. 3. As the Tribunal did not record a clear finding whether the exercise of power was arbitrary or not we sent for the record to satisfy ourselves whether the challenge made by petitioner in this regard had any merit. We are constrained to observe that after looking into the record we fell deeply anguished to find that though the Government in appointing a high power committee of senior responsible officers reposed confidence in them but the manner in which the responsibility has been discharged exhibits a complete lack of application of mind and of the basic principles explaining from time to time the scope of the words 'public interest- in relation to the question of compulsory retirement of Government servants. 4. The entry of 1974-75 on which unflinching faith has been mounted and which inspired review of the earlier decision by senior Government officers to permit the continuance of the petitioner in service translated in English, reads: "The work and conduct have been satisfactory during the period under comment. The original objective, transfer of possession in respect of consolidation work was more than prescribed. The original objective, transfer of possession in respect of consolidation work was more than prescribed. In the same manner the disposal of appeals by Sri Srivastava has been more than prescribed limit. The availability of final record was only 19% and this needs attention. Integrity certified". The Tribunal commented on this entry in the following words: "Opinions may differ whether this entry should be deemed to be adverse or not. The entry of 1974-75 speaks generally well of the work and performance of the petitioner and the reference to the alleged short fall in final consignment of records appears in the nature of advice, and in any case it refers to a very minor aspect of the work of the officer. The petitioner's contention that as against his performance of 19% in the matter, the average performance of the State was only 10% has not been contradicted by the respondents. In any view of this matter this can at best be described as a venial sin and the entry as a whole is not in any way indicative of any deterioration in the work and conduct of the petitioner." 5. The foremost question is the meaning that has to be assigned to the words 'public interest' in Fundamental Rule 56. The word has not been defined nor is it capable of any precise definition. It may assume different shades in different contexts. Its width and depth may embrace in its fold various aspects but in respect of a Government servant its limits are well defined. It is usually the honest and efficient performance or otherwise reflected in the character roll entries based on confidential reports of superior officers that furnishes the index of assessment from time to time. The award of an adverse entry is a set back, to an officer's career but its effect is mitigated by subsequent promotion and allowing of crossing of efficiency bars. The entry is not effaced but its effect is weakened. The authority competent while considering the overall performance may be entitled to look into such entries to satisfy itself if the employee has been rendered deadwood with passage of time, growing age and deterioration in skill but by itself it certainly cannot be used as an excuse or handle to retire a Government servant. The authority competent while considering the overall performance may be entitled to look into such entries to satisfy itself if the employee has been rendered deadwood with passage of time, growing age and deterioration in skill but by itself it certainly cannot be used as an excuse or handle to retire a Government servant. If the exercise of discretion is performed with a close mind and eyes shut or under pressures or is based on considerations extraneous to the assessment of the officer's performance as a Government servant the exercise of such discretion shall be beyond the protected canopy of public interest. In Union of India v. J. N. Sinha ( AIR 1971 SC 40 ) it was held by the Supreme Court: "Now coming to the express words of Fundamental Rule 6 (j), it says that the appropriate authority has the absolute right to retire a Government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. The right conferred on the appropriate authority is an absolute one. That power can be exercised subject to the conditions mentioned in the Rule, one of which is that the concerned authority must be of the opinion that it is in public interest to do so. If that authority bona fide forms that opinion the correctness of that opinion cannot be challenged before court. It is open to an aggrieved party to contend that the requisite opinion has not been formed or the decision is based on collateral grounds or that is an arbitrary decision". The Principle was reiterated in Union of India v. Chandra Mohan (AIR 1977 SC-2411) as under: "Even so, an order of compulsory retirement may be challenged in a court if it is arbitrary or is actuated by mala fide." It is therefore firmly established that an order if it is arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or discriminatory then it is not based on considerations of 'public interest'. The entry of 1974-75 has not been characterised as adverse entry by the Tribunal. The entry of 1974-75 has not been characterised as adverse entry by the Tribunal. In considering it we are not attempting to evaluate the entry ourselves as argued by the State Counsel but are trying to find out if an/ honest effort to evaluate the petitioner's, performance was made or the material on record was such from which a decision could conceivably be arrived that the performance of the petitioner was such that his retention was not in public interest. In S. R. Venkataraman v. Union of India ( AIR 1979 SC 49 (51) the Supreme Court endorsed the following principle enunciated by Lord Esher M. R. in the Queen on the Prosecution of Richards Westbrook. "If people who have to exercise a public duty by exercising their discretion take into account matters which the courts consider not to be proper for the guidance of their discretion, then in the eye of the law they have not exercised their discretion". 6. We have no doubt in our mind that tested on the anvil of the legal principles provided in above noted pronouncements the order cannot be considered to be in 'public interest'. Despite strenuous efforts of learned State Counsel we must confess our inability to discern any material on which the exercise of discretion can be sustained. 7. The learned State Counsel argued that the Committee while considering the case of the petitioner was not bound by the decision of the earlier Committee to retain him in service and the character roll of the petitioner was such that the Committee did not commit any error in recommending the petitioner's retirement. He emphasised, that in any case evaluation of the petitioner's performance being based on his character roll it was beyond judicial review. The argument is one of despair as suggested by the learned counsel for petitioner but we have examined the character roll entries of the petitioner for the strictly limited purpose of discovering whether the order for his compulsory retirement is based on any relevant material whatsoever or it is entirely a capricious and arbitrary act. The entries of the petitioner are as follows:- The entries in remaining years were good. It is admitted that the entry of 1968-1969 was expunged. The entries of the petitioner are as follows:- The entries in remaining years were good. It is admitted that the entry of 1968-1969 was expunged. In respect of 1971-72 it is not denied that it was expunged and integrity was certified but it is stated that a part of the entry, 'during the period under report, strictures were received against him in Appeal No. 387/719-A of 68 and Appeal No. 386/ 718/1367 of 1968 passed by Sri A. N. Drummond, Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 30th April 71. Sri C. P. Srivastava instead of submitting his comments on both these cases took away the papers with him when went on transfer. This was despite of my personally reminding him several times', was retained. After expunction of the 1968-69 and 1970-71 entries as to what remained providing material which might have formed the basis for chopping off the petitioner as dead-wood to clean up administration is not easy to comprehend. None of these entries individually and collectively in our view could reasonably warrant such a conclusion. The anxiety to arm itself with unfettered power to retire Government servants may have impelled the Govt, to withdraw the guidelines laid *1953-54 ..... 1954-55 ...... 1955.56 'Good except' he was far too much in the hands of his Tahsildar in suspending Lekhpals summarily." 1956-57 ....... 1957-58 Good except 'At times, he was inclined to be somewhat rash occasionally. 1958-59 ....... 1959-60 ....... 1960-61 ....... 1961-62 Good, except somehow or the other this officer does not enjoy a good reputation of integrity in the public because a number of responsible persons, complained against him- But however, these allegations do not make me suspicious of his integrity. Having consideration of the circumstances, I certify his integrity. 1962-63 ....... 1963-64 ....... 1964-65 ....... 1966-67 ....... 1967-68 ....... 1968-69 Good except from the Additional Commissioner 'case work very unsatisfactory. Appreciation of facts law very poor. Is in the habit of writing illegal Judgment and passing illegal orders.' 1969-70 ....... 1970-71 ....... 1971-72 Good except "An intelligent officer who possesses executive ability. However, there were serious complaints against his integrity both verbally and written. Vigilance enquiries are at the moment pending against him. During the period under report, strictures were recovered against him in Appeal No. 387/715/1366A of 1968 and Appeal No. 386/718/1367 of 1968 passed by Shri A H. Drumondi Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. However, there were serious complaints against his integrity both verbally and written. Vigilance enquiries are at the moment pending against him. During the period under report, strictures were recovered against him in Appeal No. 387/715/1366A of 1968 and Appeal No. 386/718/1367 of 1968 passed by Shri A H. Drumondi Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur. Shn C. P. Srivastava instead of submitting his comments on both these cases took away the papers with him when he went on transfer. This was despite my personally reminding him several times. The A. D. M. (E) in the file pertaining to the complaints of Sri C. P. Srivastava has mentioned : I have gone through tho explanation offered by Sri Chandrika Prasad Srivastava. These allegations are under enquiry from the Vigilance ' Department. A police officer of that department from Lucknow met me a few days ago. He was of the view that some of the allegations deserve a thorough probe. In view of tho above position, I am unable to certify his integrity. 1972.73 ....... 1973.74 ....... 1974.75 Already quoted above Down in the Government Order dated 26-11-1965 but the order retiring a Government servant has yet to be examined on the touchstone of 'public interest'. Judged in this light we fail to find any rational basis for accepting the order as justified in law. Howsoever absolute and undefined the discretion to retire may be but a Government servant once confirmed acquires a status which cannot be undermined by using the words 'public interest' as a mere slogan. 8. Even if a Government servant can be retired, on an overall assessment of his performance, as an officer, extending even to the commencement of his career, as such some weight has to be attached to such evaluations done by a Committee once. The Supreme Court in Chandra Mohan's case while interpreting Rule 16 of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules 1958 a rule somewhat similar to G. O. dated 26-5-1975 observed: "Compulsory retirement under R. 16 (3) is a salutary safeguard in the armory of Government for maintenance of services in trim and fitness. Rule 16 (3) is a constant reminder to the slacker, the sluggish and the inefficient, not to speak of those who may be dishonest or unscrupulous by reputation beyond redemption. Rule 16 (3) is a constant reminder to the slacker, the sluggish and the inefficient, not to speak of those who may be dishonest or unscrupulous by reputation beyond redemption. At a reasonable point of service a stage is reached when the Government reserves its undoubted right to have a second look at the officers whether their retention in employment would be useful in the public interest ............ Purity in administration is certainly to be desired. The security and morale of Services have also to be maintained. It is because of these high considerations that the Government has issued appropriate and reasonable instructions to guide the authorities in passing orders for premature retirement. The instructions clearly show that having arrived at an assessment in favour of further continuance in service at the age of 54 V2 years or so, there would ordinarily be no occasion for changing the assessment during the next three years, so that an annual review would serve little practical purpose". The principle behind this instructions is that sword of damocles must not hang over the officer every six months after he attains the age of 50 years." In our opinion there was no material which could justify petitioner's retirement either on the entries awarded to him prior to or in 1974-75. The impugned order in our judgment was clearly arbitrary. 9. The order is also bad because it suffers from the worst discrimination that can possibly be conceived of. The then Chief Minister while accepting the recommendation of the Committee in favour of the petitioner and one Harihar Prasad rejected it in case of two other employees on the ground that the representation of minority community and backward class was not sufficient. In the case of one such officer it was observed that the entries were no doubt ordinary but there was no adverse entry recently. For the other it was observed that most of the adverse entries were in respect of legal matters and decision of cases and if they were ignored then it was clear that the performance of the employees could not be said to be unsatisfactory. For the other it was observed that most of the adverse entries were in respect of legal matters and decision of cases and if they were ignored then it was clear that the performance of the employees could not be said to be unsatisfactory. From the order of the then Chief Minister which is to be found on the record, produced by learned Standing Counsel, it is apparent that the petitioner was weeded out not because of his performance as a Government servant but because he had the misfortune of not belonging to the minority community or backward caste. The right to pick and choose does not arm the authorities concerned with discretion to violate the guaranteed Fundamental, Rights and the protection afforded; by Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India. The order under challenge is discriminatory per se since it is apparent; from the order of the then Chief Minister that caste consideration played -and important role in the claimed right to' pick and choose. 10. The result is that the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 6th November 1976 and the order dated 23rd May 1975 retiring petitioner compulsorily are quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner in service till the date of his superannuation and grant him all benefits including his salary to which he would have been entitled but for the impugned order. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs.