JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - The petitioner on or before 8.1.76 was working as a Divisional Head Clerk in the Public Works Department, U.P. Government. On that, date, an order compulsorily retiring him from service was passed. He preferred a Claim petition before the Public Service Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow against the said order. This petition has been rejected hence this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The State Government took the action of compulsorily retiring the petitioner under the Fundamental Rule 56(c). This provision and the explanation thereto were inserted by the U.P. Fundamental Rule 56 (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act of 1975). The explanations (1) and (2) read as follows:- "(1) The decision of the appointing authority under clause (c) to require the Government servant to retire as specified therein shall be taken if it appears to the said authority to be in the public interest, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to require any recital, in the order, if such decision having been taken in the public interest. (2) Every such decision shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been in the public interest". 3. The Public Service Tribunal repelled the contention made before it on behalf of the petitioner that an order of compulsory retirement had not been passed in the Public interest in the following words:- "In the end the petitioner submitted that his premature retirement was not in public interest. The question whether advance retirement of particular officer is in public interest is a matter for the dismissing authority to decide. We have no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over such decision of the competent authority. We can interfere with such findings only it is arrived at arbitrarily, but such is not the case here. A perusal of the counter-affidavit shows that overall performance of the petitioner was not good and, therefore, his premature retirement was considered necessary in public interest". 4. It is clear that the afore-quoted opinion was expressed by the Public Service Tribunal keeping in view the explanations (1) and (2) to Rule 56 (c) as then stood. 5. During the pendency of this petition in this Court Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules were amended by the U.P. Fundamental Rule 56 (Amendment) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act of 1976). 5. During the pendency of this petition in this Court Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules were amended by the U.P. Fundamental Rule 56 (Amendment) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act of 1976). For explanation (2) the following were substituted and were deemed to always have been substituted. They were:- "(2) In order to be satisfied whether it will be in the Public interest to require a Government servant to retire under clause (c) the appointing authority may take into consideration any material relating to the Government servant and nothing therein 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 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". 6. The explanation (2) as amended by the U.P. Act of 1976 with retropeetive effect makes it amply clear that the decision of the State Government that a Government servant should be compulsorily retired in the Public interest should be based on some material and such a material can be looked into by an appropriate forum, including the Public Service Tribunal, if a challenge is made on that behalf. To put it differently, the opinion of the State Government or the officer passing the order that it is in the Public interest to compulsorily retire the Government servant is justifiable. 7. The question is as to what is the effect upon the order passed by the Public Service Tribunal on 2.6.76. when the U.P. Act of 1976 had not seen the light of the day. The effect of the deeming provision as contained in explanation (2) of the U.P. Act of 1976 is that notionally and in the eye of law the explanation (2) was always there from the very inception, particularly on the date when the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner was passed and when the Public Service Tribunal passed the impugned order. The effect of the deeming provision as contained in explanation (2) of the U.P. Act of 1976 is that notionally and in the eye of law the explanation (2) was always there from the very inception, particularly on the date when the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner was passed and when the Public Service Tribunal passed the impugned order. It is well settled that if a fiction of law is created and under that fiction, imaginary state of affairs are to be treated as real then the imagination should be allowed to go whole hog and it should not be permitted to boggle. A similar matter came before the Supreme Court in Raja Shatrunjit v. Md. Azim Khan, 1971 AIR S.C. 1474. The Supreme Court upheld an order of review passed by this Court as correct even though the order was based on a statutory enactment which was not in existence when the original order was passed and had come into effect after passing of the original order. The result is that the impugned order of the Public Service Tribunal will be deemed to suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record. In other words, it will be presumed that the Public Service Tribunal committed a patent error of law in passing the impugned order. Its order, therefore, stands vitiated. 8. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the Public Service Tribunal is quashed. Since the matter is pretty old, the Public Service Tribunal is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order before it by the petitioner. It is needless to say that the Tribunal shall act in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Act 1976 and shall take a fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. 9. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. 10. A certified copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges as soon as possible.