JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - The petitioner in this writ application has challenged the order dated 28-2-1980 as per Annexure-8 passed by the Collector, Dhenkanal, (opposite party No. 3) compulsorily retiring him from service with effect from 29-2-1980 afternoon and has sought a mandamus to the opposite parties directing payment of leave salary for 72 days. 2. The petitioner joined service under the ex-State of Dherkanai. After merger of the ex-State in the State of Orissa, he was absorbed and posted as a Lower Division Clerk with effect from 1-4-1948. He was promoted as Grade II Stenographer in 1962. While continuing as such in the Collectorate of Dhenkanal, he made a representation on 10-7-1979 stating that as a former employee of the ex-State of Dhenkanal, he, being mentally and physically fit, was entitled to continue up to 60 years of age. The Compensation Officer (opposite party No. 4), to whom he was attached then, made a reference to the Chief District Medical Officer, Dhenkanal, to examine the petitioner and opine if he was physically and mentally fit to discharge his official duties. As per Annexure-5 dated 20-12-1979, the Chief District Medical Officer opined that the petitioner was fit, both physically and mentally. The Collector (opposite party No. 3) however directed him to appear at a test. The test as directed by opposite party No. 3 was conducted by the Additional District Magistrate on 18-2-1980. Then came the order of opposite party No. 3 retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 29-2-1980 as he was of the opinion that the petitioner was not efficient to continue in service. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that there was no adverse entry in his confidential character rolls. Opposite party No. 4 under whom he served for years had not found him wanting in any respect. He has further alleged that when he was found fit, both physically and mentally, by the Chief District Medical Officer, who recommended that he could continue until he attained 60 years of age, it was not open to opposite party No. 3 to hold a test to judge his efficiency. 3. He has further alleged that when he was found fit, both physically and mentally, by the Chief District Medical Officer, who recommended that he could continue until he attained 60 years of age, it was not open to opposite party No. 3 to hold a test to judge his efficiency. 3. Sri Rath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterated vehemently the contentions raised in the writ application and urged that having regard to the record of the petitioner's service, as reflected in the confidential character rolls immediately proceeding the date of consideration of the petitioner's efficiency for retention in service, it was not open to the authority to hold a test. The holding of the test was n't-a vires and the retirement of the petitioner was invalid. The learned counsel for the State submitted that though no doubt the Chief District Medical Officer found the petitioner both physically and mentally fit and recommended that he could be retained till attaining the age of 60 years, that was not decisive. The Chief District Medical Officer was asked to give his opinion on one aspect of the matter, namely, whether the petitioner was fit, both physically and mentally, The other necessary aspect was if the petitioner was efficient so as to be allowed to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years. The counsel produced the test-sheet for our perusal. 4. It is not disputed that the petitioner as a former employee of ex-State of Dhenkanal was absorbed in Orissa State Service and was entitled to be retained in service till he attained the age of 60 years if he was fit, both physically and mentally, and was efficient. It is also not disputed that on a reference by the opposite party . No. 4, the Chief District Medical Officer found the petitioner fit, both physically and mentally The crux of the matter" is if the appointing authority was entitled to direct the holding of a test to judge the petitioner's efficiency. The petitioner was a stenographer at the relevant time. How good was he as a stenographer, could be judged by judging his efficiency in taking down what was dictated in shorthand and typing out the same. A test to judge his efficiency cannot be said to be extraneous or collateral. The petitioner was a stenographer at the relevant time. How good was he as a stenographer, could be judged by judging his efficiency in taking down what was dictated in shorthand and typing out the same. A test to judge his efficiency cannot be said to be extraneous or collateral. Such a test was held and from the test-sheet it is found that 157 mistakes were committed by the petitioner, i e., 5.6 mistakes to a line. The performance does not justify the full claim of the petitioner. It is submitted by the petitioner that he had been efficient throughout his career and there was no adverse entry in his confidential character rolls,. If the appointing authority was of the opinion that the petitioner's efficiency could be best judged by a test, we see nothing unwarranted cr arbitrary therein. May be, there was deterioration in the petitioner's efficiency. What could be a surer test to judge the efficiency cf a stenographer than by holding a test ? If the appointing authority has taken into consideration relevant materials, if no extraneous or collateral matters had clouded his opinion, the decision to compulsorily retire cannot be assailed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Behari Lal Agarwal Vs. Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Others. It has been observed : "...When considering the question of compulsory retirement, while it is no doubt desirable to make an overall assessment of the Government servant's record, more than ordinary value should be attached to the confidential reports pertaining to the years immediately preceding such consideration. It is possible that a Government servant may possess a somewhat erratic record in the early years of service, but with the passage of time he may have so greatly improved that it would be of advantage to continue him in service up to the statutory age of superannuation. Whatever value the confidential reports of earlier years may possess, those pertaining to the later years are not only of direct relevance but also of utmost importance." This case is not directly on the point. The confidential character rolls of the earlier years were bad while those of the later years were good. Against that background the aforesaid observation has been made. Not so in the petitioner's case. The confidential character rolls of the earlier years were bad while those of the later years were good. Against that background the aforesaid observation has been made. Not so in the petitioner's case. The standard of his efficiency was revealed by his performance at the test. Having regard to his performance it was open to the appropriate authority to form an opinion that his employment would not be useful in the public interest. We do not see how the aforesaid decision can help the petitioner. We see, therefore, no force in the contention advanced by Shri Rath. 6. The petitioner has also claimed leave salary for 72 days. It is alleged that though he was entitled leave salary for 72 days, he was paid for 108 days. The same has been controverted in the counter-affidavit. Argument on this aspect was feeble indeed, neither side giving much stress thereon.' However, we do not finally decide this question. We leave the matter open. If the petitioner has been aggrieved by the denial of leave salary for 72 days, it is open to him to make a demand before the opposite parties and we hope that if such a claim is made, the same shall be considered and disposed of, as expeditiously as possible. If the decision of the opposite parties goes against the petitioner, a reasoned order shail be communicated to him. 7. With the observations aforesaid, the writ application is dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed