JUDGMENT T. S Misra, J. - The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the year 1944 in Civil Courts, Lucknow. His date of birth as noted in his service book is 8th December, 1922. By an order dated 31st March, 1976 the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, compulsory retired the petitioner from service in exercise of the power under Fundamental Rule 56. The petitioner challenged that order before the U. P Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, without success His claim petition was rejected by the said Tribunal on 9th March, 1978 (a clarified copy of which is Annexure 10 to the petition) The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking the quashing of the said order of the Tribunal as also the aforesaid order dated 31st March, 1976, contained in annexure I to the writ petition. He has also asked for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties 1 and 2 to treat the petitioner as having continued in service. The petition was opposed and counter- affidavits have been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel. The service hook and the Character Roll of the petitioner were also produced before me and I have gone through the same. 2. The case of the petitioner was that he had not been awarded any adverse entry for the last ten years before the passing of the impugned order of compulsory retirement On the contrary, he had got promotion and wade many of his seniors in the matter of confirmation as Central Nazir. Further, it was submitted that the report of the Screening Committee clearly indicated that the order of compulsory retirement was passed arbitrarily.s allowed to cross the efficiency bar and was adjudged suitable to supersede many of his seniors in the matter of confirmation as Central Nazir. further , it has submitted tat the report of the Screening Committee Clearly indicated that the order of Compulsory retirement was passed arbitrarily. 3. further , it has submitted tat the report of the Screening Committee Clearly indicated that the order of Compulsory retirement was passed arbitrarily. 3. The impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed in exercise of the powers contained in U. P. Fundamental Rue 56 the material portion of which reads as follows : "56 (a) Except as otherwise provided in other clauses of this rule, the date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant, other than a Government servant in inferior service, is the date on which he attains the age of 58 years. He may be retained in service after the date of compulsory retirement with the sanction of the Government on public grounds, which must be recorded in but that writing, he must not he retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances provided that : (i) 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 or such lesser age as together with the period of notice in lieu of which the pay is substituted would aggregate to 55 years, so, however, that in the case of pay being given in lieu of the whole or part of such notice the said period shall stand added to the Government 'servant's qualifying service for the purposes of calculating the pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity due to him and for no other purposes . or (ii) the Government servant may, after attaining the age of 55 years, voluntarily retire after giving 3 months' notice to the appointing authority. Provided further that : (i) the notice of voluntary retirement given under the first proviso by a Government servant against whom a disciple proceeding is pending or contemplated, shall by effective only if it is expected by the appointing authority subject to the condition that in case of contemplated disciplinary proceeding, the Government servant is so informed before the expiry of the notice. (i) the notice once given by a Government servant under the first proviso shall not he withdrawn by him except with the permission of the appointing authority" This rule was amended by the U. P. Fundamental Rule 56 (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1975 whereby the aforesaid provisos to cl. (i) the notice once given by a Government servant under the first proviso shall not he withdrawn by him except with the permission of the appointing authority" This rule was amended by the U. P. Fundamental Rule 56 (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1975 whereby the aforesaid provisos to cl. (a) and their Explanation; were omitted and after cl. (b) the following clauses were inserted : "(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in cl. (a) or cl. (h), appointing authority may, at any time, by notice to any Government servant (whether permanent or temporary) without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of fifty years or such Government servant may by notice to the appointing authority, voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of 50 years or after he has completed qualifying service of twenty years (d) The period of such notice shall be three months :- Provided that :- (i) any such Government servant may by order of the appointing authority, without such notice or by a shorter notice he retired forthwith at any time after attaining the age of fifty years, and on such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances, if any, for the period of notice or, as the case may be, the period by which such notice falls short or three months, at the same rates at which he was drawing immediately before his retirement ; (ii) it shall be open to the appointing authority to allow a Government servant to retire without any notice or by a shorter notice without requiring the Government servant to pay any penalty in lieu of notice ............... A further amendment was made to R 56 by the U P Fundamental Rule 56 (Amendment) Act, 1976. In existing cl. (c) for the words "fifty years" occurring the second time, the words "forty five yeast" were substituted and for Explanation (2) the following Explanation was substituted and was deemeed to always have been substituted, namely : (2) In order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public interest to require a Government servant to retire under cl. (c) for the words "fifty years" occurring the second time, the words "forty five yeast" were substituted and for Explanation (2) the following Explanation was substituted and was deemeed to always have been substituted, namely : (2) In order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public interest to require a Government servant to retire under cl. (c) the appointing authority make into consideration any material relating to the Government servant and nothing herein contained shall be construed to exclude from consideration :- (a) any entries relating to any period before such Government servant was allowed to cross any efficiency bar or before he was promoted to any post in an officiating or substantive capacity or on an ad hoc basis ; or (b) any entry against which a representation is pending provided that the representation is also taken into consideration along with the entry'; or (c) any report of the Vigilance Establishment constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965. (2-A) Every such decision shall be deemed to have been taken in the public interest." 4. In the case of Baldev Rai Chadha v. Union of India ( AIR 1981 Supreme Court 70) the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the order to retire compulsorily a public servants in from service must be passed by the appropriate authority, That authority. must form the requisite opinion not subjective satisfaction but objective and bona fide and based on relevant material. The requisite opinion in that the retirement of the victim is in "public interest"not personal, political or other interest but solely governed by the interest of public service. The right to retire is not absolute, though so worded. Absolute power is anathema under our constitutional order. "Absolute" merely means wide, not more Nacked and arbitrary exercise of power is bad in law. Further, it was held : "When an order is challenged and its validity depends on its being supported by public interest, the State most disclose the material so that the court may he satisfied that the order is not had for want of any material whatever which, to a reasonable man reasonably instructed in the law, is sufficient to sustain the grounds of 'Public interest' justifying forced retirement of the public servant. Judges cannot substitute their judgment for that of the Administrator but they are not absolved from the minimal review well-settled in administrative law and founded cm constitutional obligations. The Court is confined to an examination of the material merely to say whether a rational mind may conceivably he satisfied that the compulsory retirement of the officer concerned is necessary in public interest. The appropriate authority, not the Court, makes the decision, but, even so, a caveat is necessary to avoid misuse." In that case the offer concerned was in continuous service for 14 years, had crossed the efficiency bar and reached the maximum salary in the scale and with no adverse entries at least for five years immediately before the compulsory retirement It was held that he could not he cashiered on the score that long years ago his performance had been poor, although his superiors had allowed him to cross the efficiency bar without qualms. 5. It was noticed in that case that the whole purpose of the rule is to weed out the worthless without the punitive extremes covered by Article 311 of the Constitution After all, administration, to he efficient must not be manned by drones, do nothings, incompetents and worthies. It is in public interest to retire a never-do-well but to juggle with confidential reports when a man's career is at stake is a confidence trick contrary to public interest. Moreover, confidential reports are often subjective, impressionistic and must receive sedulous checking as basis for decision making. It was hence held that any order which materially suffers from the blemish of overlooking or ignoring wilfully or otherwise, vital facts bearing on the decision is bad in law. Likewise, any action which irrationally digs up obsolete circumstances and obsessively reaches a decision based thereon, cannot be sustained. Legality depends on regard or the totality of material facts viewed in holi tic perspective 6. Likewise, any action which irrationally digs up obsolete circumstances and obsessively reaches a decision based thereon, cannot be sustained. Legality depends on regard or the totality of material facts viewed in holi tic perspective 6. It may he noticed that the amendment made in R. 56 by the U. P. Act 33 of 1976 enables the appointing authority to take into consideration any material relating to the Government servant in order to he satisfied whether it will be in the public interest to require that Government servant to retire under Cl (c) of R. 51, and in doing so the appointing authority may consider any entries relating to any period before such Government servant was allowed to cross any efficiency bar or before he was promoted to any post in an officiating or substantive capacity or on an ad hoc basis or any entry against which a representation is pending, provided that the representation is also taken into consideration along with the entry or any report of the Vigilance Establishment constituted under U. P Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965. Thus the confidential reports can certainly he considered by the appointing authority in order to be satisfied as to whether it will be the public interest to require the Government servant to retire under R. 56. However, as pointed out in the Union of India v. M. E. Reddy, (A. 1. R. 1980 S. C. 563) it is not an entry here or in entry there which has to be taken into consideration but the overall picture of the officer concerned during the long years of his service that be puts in has to be considered from the point of achieving higher standard of efficiency and dedication so as to be retained even after the Officer has put in the requisite number of years of service. Under Explanation (2) as inserted by U. P. Act 33 of 1976 previous history of a Government servant may he taken into consideration even if he was promoted but if after promotion there is no entry in the service hook to his discredit or hinting even remotely that he had outlived his utility as a Government servant, the order of compulsory retirement may not be justified because when there is nothing in the present conduct casting any doubt on the wisdom of promotion and on the efficiency of the person concerned, needless digging into the past would not be fair. It there is, however, some entry unfavourable to the Govt. servant concerned after his promotion, it would be appropriate to bark back to similar or like entries in the past and read them all in conjunction for arriving at the conclusion whether it would be in the public interest to retire the Government servant from service. Thus the test is whether on an overall consideration of the entire history of the service of the Government servant concerned it wold he in the interest of administration and to ensure better initiative and efficiency to retire him "in public interest." 7. I shall now consider the facts in the light of these broad lines of law. In the written-statement filed on behalf of the opposite-parties before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal in Reference No. 701 (T)/III/77 Laiji Lal Srivastava v. District Judge, Lucknow, (Annexure 3) it was alleged, inter alia that the impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed on objective considerations and not on subjective satisfaction and was based the unanimous recommendation of the Screening Committee consisting of the District Judge and two next senior most officers in the Judgeship, viz, Sri G. L. Shukla and Sri B. L. Loomba. The District Judge vide his letter dated 8th March, 1976 called for the opinion of all the Presiding Officers about the work and conduct of all the officials who had attained the age of 50 years or were to attain that age on 31-3-1976. The petitioner was at the time working as Munsarim of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Lucknow, and, according to the report of Sri Loomba, the Presiding Officer of that Court, the work of the petitioner on the whole was found to be not up to the mark. The petitioner was at the time working as Munsarim of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Lucknow, and, according to the report of Sri Loomba, the Presiding Officer of that Court, the work of the petitioner on the whole was found to be not up to the mark. On 12th March, 1976, a meeting of the Screening Committee was held in the chamber of the District Judge and the Committee reported : "Considering the service records, it has been considered in public interest that at present three of the officials, namely, Lalji Lal Srivastava, Amir Ahmad and Jugal Kishore be retired." 8. On 31st March, 1976 the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow passed the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service vide Annexure 1. 9. A perusal of the character roll of the petitioner discloses that the following entries were made therein during the period .969 to 1975 : "He worked as Munsarim-curn-Reader of my Court, work good, Integrity certified. Sd. L. S. P. Singh, Additional Civil Judge, Lucknow 5-8-1969. He is a competent Reader and is well versed in office work and administrative work. Sd.L.S.P. Singh. Addl. Civil Judge. 5-8-1969. He is capable and intelligent. His work has been satisfactory and integrity is certified Sd. Illegible. Civil Judge (I. K. O.) 2-5-1970. He has control on his work. I find him hardworking and dependable.Integrity certified. Sd. Illegible. 16-8-1971. Civil Judge, Lucknow He has impressed me as a laborious and honest worker. Integrity certified. Sd. H.C. Shukla, District Judge, Lucknow 9-6-1973. He is working as Central Nazir since 24-8-1973. I have found him laborious and hard working. Integrity certified. Sd. R. S. Singh. District Judge, Lucknow 31-5-1974. Not seen much of his work. Appears to he an official of just average ability. Integrity certified. Sd. Illegible District Judge 2-4-197-5. The entries of 1969, 1970, 1971, 1973 and 1974 indicated that the petitioner vas found to be laborious and hard working and his work was satisfactory. It, however, appears ,that the District Judge who had made the entry on 2-4-1975 had not seen much of the work of the petitioner and on the basis of the work he had seen he was of the view that the petitioner appeared to be official of just average ability. This entry, therefore, cannot he said to he such as to warrant the conclusion that the petitioner had outlived his utility. This entry, therefore, cannot he said to he such as to warrant the conclusion that the petitioner had outlived his utility. Prior to the year 1969 some adverse entries had been awarded to the petitioner. He had joined the service in the year 1944. The first entry in his character roll is of the year 1947 which was as under : "should try to improve." Some warning entries were made in the year 1948, 1955 and 1957. Again in the year 1959 as also in year 1963 though it was stated that his work was quite satisfactory, he was required to improve. The same was again hinted in the entry of 24-1-1964. He was found to be negligent in handling some cases in 1967 and an entry to that effect was made. Then followed the entries of 1969 and onwards quoted herein above. So, the entries for six years prior to the impugned order were not adverse ; rather his work was found to he satisfactory and be was said to have impressed the District Judge as a laborious and honest worker. He had also in the meantime been promoted. On a conjoint reading o' all the entries in the character roll it cannot hence be said that the petitioner was a 'deadwood' needed to be chopped off in the public interest. No doubt the objective satisfaction of appointing authority cannot he substituted by the judgment of the Court but it has to he seen while making a judicial review as to whether a rational mind may conceivably he satisfied that the compulsory retirement of the officer concerned is necessary in public interest. The administration has to be kept efficient and those who had become dead wood need to be removed but the order of compulsory retirement would fail if vital material relevant to the decision has been ignored and obsolete and less relevant material has influenced the decision. The petitioner was found to he laborious and hardworking in 1973 as also in 1974. In 1973 Sri H. G. Shukla was the District Judge whereas 1974 Shri R. S. Singh was the District Judge. Both of them had commended the work of the petitioner. It seems that in 1975 Shri A. N. Verma was the District Judge. He had not seen much of the work of the petitioner before he had made the entry on 2nd April, 1975. Both of them had commended the work of the petitioner. It seems that in 1975 Shri A. N. Verma was the District Judge. He had not seen much of the work of the petitioner before he had made the entry on 2nd April, 1975. His remark to the effect that the petitioner was an official of just average ability would, therefore, not he sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the petitioner had outlived his utility. The other past entries of the years 1969, 1970 and 1971 were also favourable to him. The Pubic Services Tribunal did not consider the effect of these entries more particularly in the light of the circumstances that the petitioner had received due promotions and had been regularly drawing increments without let or hindrance. The petitioner thus having no adverse entry at least for six years immediately before the compulsory retirement could not be asked to get out of the job on the score that long years ago he had been asked "to improve his work" though even then he war allowed increments and was allowed to cross the efficiency bar. The entries prior to the year 1969 did not, in my view, constitute such adverse remarks against the petitioner so as to make them a reasonable basis for the formation of the opinion that the petitioner should he retired in public interest It, however, seems that obsolete material less relevant to the decision had influenced the impugned decision of the appointing authority. And this makes that order had in law. It also suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. It was, therefore, not sustainable. The tribunal had failed to consider the question in its correct perspective , hence its order cannot also he sustained. 10. In the result the petition is allowed with costs. The order dated 9th March, 1978 passed by the U P. Public Services Tribunal is quashed and the order dated 31st March, 1976 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow. under R. 56 of the Fundamental Rules compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service is also quashed. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has already reached his age of superannuation ; hence be cannot he reinstated. The opposite-parties should, therefore, pay to the petitioner the salary and other emoluments from the date when he was relieved till the date when he reached the age of superannuation.