JUDGMENT NAINAR SUNDARAM, J.: 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the Order in Writ Petition No.4244 of 1979, whereby ohan, J. dismissed the petition. The appellant herein was the petitioner and the respondents herein were the respondents in the Writ Petition. We propose to refer to the parties as per their array in the writ petition. 2. The petitioner came to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning an order of compulsory retirement dated 10.12.1975 and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with effect from 19.11.1974 on which date the petitioner was declared fit for resuming his duty as Deputy Inspector-General of Police and further accord the petitioner all the benefits including seniority, increments and promotions, to which he would be entitled if he had continued in service from 19.11.1974. 3. The preceding facts, which are necessary to appreciate and assess the grievance of the petitioner and which facts, we have gathered from the typed sets of papers, filed by the petitioner, run as follows: The petitioner was last serving as Deputy Inspector-General of Police with the second respondent. He seemed to have fallen ill and was off duty between 14.10.1973 and 19.11.1973. This appeared to be his first spell of illness. Again he fell ill between 5.5.1974 and 10.6.1974. The illness which affilicted the petitioner has been diagnosed as Idiopathic polyneuropathy of the Guillain Rarre type. There are three certificates issued by Dr. S. Kalyanaraman, Neurosurgeon. The first certificate, dated 23.8.1974 reads as follows: “I certify that Sri G. V. Narayanan, I.P.S., D.I.G, of Police, who has been under my treatment for chronic Guillain Parre syndrome from 5.5.1974 has not yet fully recovered. He requires a further period of leave of three months from 1.9.1974 to 30.11.1974 (both days inclusive) for medical treatment and physiotherapy for full recovery. I am of the opinion that in the normal course and if his present rate of progress is maintained, he will be fit to return to duty by 1st December, 1974. The second certificate dated 19.11.1974 runs as follows: “This is to certify that Sri G.V. Narayanan, M.A. I.P.S., Deputy Inspector-General of Police, who has been under my treatment for Guillain-Rarre syndrome since 5.5.1974 has shown very good improvement neurologically. The second certificate dated 19.11.1974 runs as follows: “This is to certify that Sri G.V. Narayanan, M.A. I.P.S., Deputy Inspector-General of Police, who has been under my treatment for Guillain-Rarre syndrome since 5.5.1974 has shown very good improvement neurologically. I am of the opinion that his present recovery is sufficient to enable him to attend to his office work for which he is fit.” The third-certificate stated to have been obtained on 4.12.1974 is in the following terms: “I, Dr. S. Kalyanaraman, Civil Surgeon of Government General Hospital, do hereby certify that I have examined Mr. G. V. Narayanan of the Indian Police Service Department whose signature is given above and that he is recovering from his illness and is now fit to resume duties in office in Government service.” The petitioner wanted posting, but that was not accorded by the second-respondent and the second-respondent deemed fit to refer the matter to the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Madras, with a request to constitute a Medical Board to examine the petitioner and send the Report of the Medical Board immediately. The body of the communication runs as follows: “Thiru G.V. Narayanan, I.P.S. Offg. D.I.G. has been on medical leave from 5.5.1974 for treatment of chronic Guillain Barre Syndrome. As a result of this disease, his. body muscles are reported to have wasted and his legs are not able to support the weight of his body. Thiru G.V.N. was due to return to duty on 1.12.1974. He requested the Government to give him a posting. He has also produced a M.C. from a Doctor. The Doctor has certified that Thiru G.V.N. has shown neurologically, a very good improvement. He is of opinion that his present recovery is sufficient to enable him to attend to his office ‘ork for which he is fit. This certificate is enclosed. Thiru G.V.N. is an Offg. D.I.G. of Police. He has to tour extensively for performing annual inspection of various units in the District in the Range. He has to advise and if necessary supersede the S.Ps. in times of grave disorder, taking over full control of the situation. He will have to pay particular attention to the training and discipline in the Police Force. It will be clear from the above position that the D.I.G. of Police has a very large measure of strenous executive work to do. in times of grave disorder, taking over full control of the situation. He will have to pay particular attention to the training and discipline in the Police Force. It will be clear from the above position that the D.I.G. of Police has a very large measure of strenous executive work to do. This would entail long tours, attendance at and inspection of parades, supervision of large scale bando-bust for visits of V.I.Ps. Hence, as DIG of Police, Thiru G.V.N. does not merely have to do office work but he has also a large measure of executive work requiring physical activity. It has been reported to the Government that G.V.N. is able to walk with the aid of crutches. The Government therefore consider that G.V.N. may be placed before a Medical Board for a definite recommendation about his fitness to perform not merely office work but also executive work. The Supdt. of Government General Hospital is requested to constitute a medical board to examine the officer and send the report of the Medical Board to Government immediately. He is also requested to intimate the Officer the date and time on which he should appear before the Medical Board. The Supdt. G.G.H. Madras is requested to return the certificate of medical fitness given by the Medical Attendant of Thiru G.V. Narayanan along with the report of the Medical Board. The address of the Officer is furnished below: Thiru G.V. Narayanan, I.P.S. Offg. D.I.G. of Police (on leave) No.4, N.A.R…..Madras 10. (Sd) H.K.Ghazi, Special Secretary to Government.” The Medical Board seemed to have examined the petitioner thrice and recommended spells of long leave only on all the occasions. One of the certificate of the Medical Board, dated 26.4.1975 constituted of Prof. K. Natarajan, M.D. Dr. K. Chandrasekaran and Dr. Prof. K. Jagannathan, runs as follows: “After careful personal examination of the case we hereby certify that Thiru G.V. Narayanan, Deputy Inspector-General of Police is suffering from Idiopathic Polyneuropathy of the Guillain Barre Type, and we solemnly and sincerely declare that according to the best of our judgment, a period of absence from duty of six months is essentially necessary for the recovery. Six months’ leave with effect from 1.5.1975.” The second-respondent seemed to have recommended to the first-respondent to retire the petitioner compulsorily from service under rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. Six months’ leave with effect from 1.5.1975.” The second-respondent seemed to have recommended to the first-respondent to retire the petitioner compulsorily from service under rule 16(3) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. The first respondent seemed to have suggested to the second respondent to request the petitioner to opt for voluntary retirement under rule 16(2) of the rules. Hence, the second respondent wrote to the third respondent in November, 1975 and the body of the letter as disclosed in the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner, runs as follows “My dear Arul, With reference to the State Government's proposal for the compulsory retirement of Shri G.V.Narayanan, it is observed that the grounds for considering the Officer to have outlived his utility are based on his ill-health. As such it is considered that instead of proceeding under rule 16(3) , he may be given the option to voluntarily retire under rule 16(2) and the State Government may advise him accordingly. I request you to please advise Thiru G.V. Narayanan accordingly.” The petitioner is stated to have replied on 6.12.1975 stating that if certain relaxations were made in his favour under rule 32 of the All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955, he would voluntarily retire under rule 16(2) of the rules. However, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 10.12.1975, which runs as follows: “In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- rule (3) of rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1958, the President, in consultation with the Government of Tamil Nadu, is pleased to order the retirement of Shri G.V. Narayanan, a member of the Indian Police Service borne on the Cadre of Tamil Nadu, in the public interest on the expiry of three months from the date of service of this order on him.” The Gazette Notification in this behalf was published on 16.12.1975. The petitioner made two representations to the first respondent; one on 3.3.1976 and later on 24.10.1977. The first representation was withdrawn. However, on the second representation, the case of the petitioner was reviewed, and his representations stood rejected, as we could see from the communication of the third respondent dated 3.8.1979. 4. The petitioner, we find, was represented by counsel before the learned single Judge. The first representation was withdrawn. However, on the second representation, the case of the petitioner was reviewed, and his representations stood rejected, as we could see from the communication of the third respondent dated 3.8.1979. 4. The petitioner, we find, was represented by counsel before the learned single Judge. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that under the rules there are special provisions in rules 13 and15 of the rules for retiring the petitioner on the ground of medical unfitness and that power alone ought to have been resorted to and there was no warrant for invoking rule 16(3). There was another contention before the learned single Judge that admittedly medical grounds alone weighed for the retirement of the petitioner under rule 16(3) and that would amount to casting a stigma and hence the action taken must be characterised as a punitive one. There was yet another contention advanced before the learned single Judge that the provisions in rules 13 and15 for retiring an officer on the ground of permanent incapacity being special rules, only those provisions ought to have been followed instead of the general provisions under rule 16(3). All these contentions did not find favour with the learned single Judge and this obliged him to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. In this Writ Appeal directed against the order of the learned single Judge, the petitioner chose to appear in person. He was shown the indulgence of a full hearing and he was exhaustive in his oral submissions and he has supplemented his oral submissions by a written summary thereof. We propose to deal with his salient contentions as follows: His first contention is, in the case of a member of the service, who is permanently incapacitated, there are a set of rules, as found in Rule 13 and rule 15 , read along with rule 28(7) and the concerned schedule which alone ought to have been resorted to and resort to rule 16(3) is wholly incompetent. Expatiating this contention, the petitioner would draw our attention to the history behind rule 16(3) and would state that prior to its introduction on 30.8.1965, there was no provision enabling the Central Government by itself to resort to the power of compulsory retirement in public interest and the earlier rule, namely, 17(2) only enabled the State Government, with the approval of the Central Government, to retire a member of the Service who has completed 30 years of service. He would place reliance on the Santhanam Committee Report, which recommended the steps to be taken to improve those who were ineffective by counselling and training, and the amendment of the retirement rules so as to empower the Central Government to retire those who continued to be ineffective inspite of counselling and training and also those who lacked integrity. According to the petitioner, this recommendation formed the genesis for the introduction of rule 16(3) and the power under rule 16(3) should be resorted to only to retire a member of the service who continued to be ineffective in spite of training and counselling and those lacking integrity and this power does not include a power to retire a member of the service for mental or physical unfitness, which cannot be described as something to be cured by training and counselling. The petitioner submitted that in the case of a member of the service permanently incapacitated, the specific provisions in rules 13 and15 alone should govern and the State Government is the competent authority to retire a member of the Service for physical unfitness. He would also point out the difference between the scope of the rules. 6. Before we deal with this contention of the petitioner on the above lines, we feel obliged to extract the relevant rules 13, 14, 15, 17(1) and 28(7) of the Rules, as follows: "13. Invalid gratuity or pension: (1) Where the Government has reason to believe that a member of the service is suffering from: (a) a contagious disease, or (b) a physical or mental disability which in its opinion interferes with the efficient discharge of his duties, it may direct him to undergo medical examination with a view to retire him from service on invalid gratuity or pension, as she case may be. A member of the service also may, if he feels that he is not in a fit state of health to discharge his duties, apply to the Government for retirement on invalid gratuity or pension as the case may be. (2) An invalid gratuity or pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity where admissible shall be granted to a member of the Service who having appeared under the direction of the Government or on his own application before a duly, constituted Medical Board, is certified by that Medical Board, by bodily or mental infirmity, to be permanently incapacitated for further service. The family of a member of the service who retires or is retired under this rule shall be entitled to the benefits of the family pension as laid down in rule 22 or22-B. (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- rule (2), relief against rise in the cost of living index shall be granted to every such member of the service at such scales and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government from time to time for officers of the Central Civil Services, Class 1. (3) The medical certificate of incapacity shall be attested. (a) if the member of the service is on leave out of India, by a Medical Board to be convened for the purpose by the Indian Mission in the country in which the member of the service is on leave; (b) in other cases, by the Medical Board to be convened by the Chief Administrative Medical Officer of the State in which the member of the service is on duty or on leave. The Chief Administrative Officer, shall, wherever practicable, preside over such a Board. (4) Save where he is on leave out of India no member of the Service shall apply for a medical certificate of incapacity and no such certificate shall be granted unless- (a) the applicant produces evidence to show that the Government is aware of his intention to appear before the Chief Administrative Medical Officer; and (b) the Chief Administrative Medical Officer is informed about the age of the applicant as recorded in his history of services and is supplied with a statement of the leave taken by him during the three years immediately preceding and of the history of the medical case and the treatment adopted as far as possible. (5) If the Medical Board, although unable to discover any specific disease in the member of the Service, considers him incapacitated for further service by general debility while still under the age of fifty eight years, it shall give detailed reasons for its opinion. Wherever possible a second medical opinion shall in such cases be obtained. (6) A certificate that inefficiency is due to old age or natural decay from advancing years shall not be deemed to be sufficient for retiring a member of the service on invalid gratuity or pension. (7) The Medical Certificate shall be in the form set forth in Schedule C. 14. Restrictions on the grant of invalid gratuity or pensions- (1) A member of the Service who is discharged from the service on the ground other than those specified in rule 13 shall have no claim to invalid gratuity or pension or death-cum-retirement gratuity even though he produces medical evidence of incapacity for service. Nor will his family, be entitled to the benefits of the family pension. (2) If the incapacity is directly due to irregular or intemperate habits, no invalid gratuity or pension or death-cum-retirement gratuity shall be granted to a member of the service. If it has not been directly caused by such habits but has been accelerated or aggravated by them it shall be for the Central Government to decide what reduction, if any, shall be made on this account in the retirement benefits otherwise admissible. (Vote: (1) The mere fact that a member of the service has suffered from syphilis, taken by itself, is not sufficient to bring his case under the operation of this rule. (2) Unsoundness of mind caused by drug habits shall be taken as sufficient to bring his case under the operation of this Rule. (3) The expression “irregular or intemperate habits” occurring in this rule refers to incapacity on account of drug habits or on account of disease resulting from immoral habits. Cases where incapacity was due to other causes eg. work at irregular hours during war and after, due to exigencies of service and not due to own volition, do not come under the purview of this rule. 15. Cases where incapacity was due to other causes eg. work at irregular hours during war and after, due to exigencies of service and not due to own volition, do not come under the purview of this rule. 15. Retirement from service of a member of the service in certain cases and grant of leave: (1) A member of the service who has been declared by a Medical Board to be permanently incapacitated for further service shall, if he is on duty, be invalid from service from the date of relief which shall be arranged without delay on receipt of the report of the Medical Board or, if he is granted leave under sub- rule (2), on the expiry of such leave: Provided that if he is on leave at the time of receipt of the report of the Medical Board, he shall be invalid from service on the expiry of that leave or extension of leave, if any, granted to him under sub- rule (2). (2) A member of the service in respect of whom a Medical Board has reported that there is no reasonable prospect of his ever being fit to return to duty, may not be granted leave except as follows: (a) If the Medical Board is unable to say with certainty that the member of the service will never again be fit for service, leave not exceeding 1? months in all may be granted to him. Such leave shall not be extended without further reference to a Medical Board. (b) If a member of the Service has been declared by the Medical Board to be completely and permanently incapacitated for further service, leave or an extension of leave may be granted to him after the report of the Medical Board has been received provided that the amount of leave so granted together with any period of duty beyond the date on which the Medical Board signed their report, shall not exceed 6 months. 16. 16. Superannuation, gratuity or pensiom-(1) A member of the Service shall be required compulsorily to retire from the service with effect from the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years on public grounds which shall be recorded in writing - (a) for an aggregate period not exceeding six months by the State Government; and (b) for any period beyond six months, with the sanction of the Central Government: Provided further that a member of the service shall not be retained in service beyond the age of 80 years except in very special circumstances. Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-rule, a member of the Service whose date of birth falls on the 1st day of any month shall have attained the age of fifty-eight years on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month: Provided also that an Indian Civil Service member of the Indian Administrative service, who attained the age of 58 years before the 1st April, 1973 shall retire compulsorily on the date on which he shall retire compulsorily in accordance with the rules applicable to him immediately before the 1st October, 1972, or on the 1st April, 1973, whichever is earlier unless his service has been extended before the 1st October, 1972, in accordance with the rules then applicable or in accordance with these rules. (2) A member of the Service may, after giving at least three months previous notice in writing, to the State Government concerned, retire from service on the date on which such member completes thirty years of qualifying service or on the date on which such member attains fifty of age or any date thereafter to be specified in the notice: Provided that no member of the Service under suspension shall retire from service except with the specific approval of the State Government concerned. (2A) A member of the service may, after giving three months previous notice in writing to the State Government concerned, retire from service on the date on which he completes 20 years of qualifying service or any date thereafter to be specified in the notice: Provided that a notice of retirement given by a member of the service shall require acceptance by the State Government if the date of retirement on the expiry of the period of notice would be earlier than the date on which the member of the Service could have retired from service under sub- rule (21) Provided further that a member of the service who, is on deputation to a corporation or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government or to a body controlled or financed by the Government, shall not be eligible to retire from service under this rule for getting himself permanently absorbed in such corporation, company, or body. (3) The Central Government may, in consultation with the State Government concerned and after giving a member of the service at least three months’ previous notice in writing, or three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of such notice require that member to retire in public interest from service on the date on which such member completes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice. (4) A superannuation gratuity or pension shall be granted to a member of the service who is required to retire under sub- rule (1) of this rule. 17. Retiring Pension and Gratuity :(1) A retiring pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity shall be granted to a member of the service who retires or is required to retire under rule 16. Miscellaneous: (7) The authorities competent to retire a member of the Service on different kinds of retirement benefits shall be those indicated in Schedule K.” The concerned schedule sets out the authority competent to retire a member of the service on various kinds of retirement benefits. With regard to retirement under rule 13, the authority competent to retire is the State Government, after obtaining the concurrence of the Central Government. With regard to the retirement under rule 17, read with rule 16(3), the authority competent to retire is the Central Government, in consultation with the State ‘Government concerned. With regard to retirement under rule 13, the authority competent to retire is the State Government, after obtaining the concurrence of the Central Government. With regard to the retirement under rule 17, read with rule 16(3), the authority competent to retire is the Central Government, in consultation with the State ‘Government concerned. We must point out that though the language of rule 16(3) has been undergoing changes, yet the substance of it remained the same, when it empowered the Central Government to retire a member of the service permanently. 7. The petitioner himself admits that guidelines or instructions containing seven paragraphs have come to be expressed for the purposes of rule 16(3) and they are found in the All India Service Manual-Volume corrected upto 1.5.1977 at page 596 and the petitioner further admits that these guidelines or instructions were the subject matter of scrutiny by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam and others State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam and others (1978)1 Lab.L.J.6= (1978)1 S.C.R. 521 =(1977) S.L.J.633=(1977)4 S.C.C.345=(1977)3 All L.R.673=(1977) Lab.I.C.1923=A.I.R.1977 S.C.2411. What the Supreme Court said about these guidelines or instructions will stand better appreciated if we refer to the following passages occurring in its judgment: “Since sub- rule (3) of rule 16 does not contain any guidelines with regard to premature retirement the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs issued certain instructions which are printed at page 596 of the All India Service Manual (corrected upto 1.5.1967) which is published under the authority of the Government.” “On September 5, 1967, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued further instructions to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments (except Nagaland) with regard to the criteria and procedure to be followed regarding premature retirement of the All India Service Officers.” “The learned single Judge held the instructions of the Ministry of Home Affairs as statutory and as such binding on a concession made in the counter-affidavit submitted before him by Under Secretary of the Personnel Department Cabinet Secretariat. According to the counter-affidavit these instructions were made by the Government by rule 2 of the AH India Services (Conditions of Service - Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960. According to the counter-affidavit these instructions were made by the Government by rule 2 of the AH India Services (Conditions of Service - Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960. It is not necessary to go into this aspect in detail in this case as to whether the instructions can be elevated to the status of statutory rules or even constitutional directions as found by the learned Single Judge. It is sufficient for our purpose that these instructions do not violate any provision of the Act or of the rules. Rule 16(3) being a rigorous rule vis-a-vis a Government servant not himself willing to retire under rule 16(2), has to be invoked in a fair and reasonable manner. Since rule 16(3) itself does not contain any guidelines, directions or csiteria, the instructions issued by the Government furnish an essential and salutary procedure for the purpose of securing uniformity in application of the rule. These instructions really fill up the yawning gaps in the provisions, and are embedded in the conditions of service. These are binding on the Government and cannot be violated to the prejudice of the Government servant (see also Sant Raw Sharma v. State of Rajasthan Sant Raw Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (1968)1 S.C.J. 672=(1968)1 S.C.R.111=A.I.R.1967 S.C.1910 and Union of India v. K.P. Joseph Union of India v. K.P. Joseph (1974)2 S.C.J.276=(1973) Lab.I.C.191=(1973)1 S.C.C.194=(1973)2 S.C.R.752=A.I.R.1973 S.C.303.” “In order to pass the test of constitutionality, rule 16(3) must needs be safeguarded by reasonable procedure guidelines in order that there may be no scope for arbitrariness or discrimination. That is how rule 16(3), being silent, instructions speak and do vitative service in a vacuous field. The material procedure under the instructions, as if inter-woven in rule 16(3), can on no account be held invalid or impermissible.” 8. Paragraph 5 of the guidelines, we find, is extracted in the judgment of this Court in S hankar Rao v. Government of India hankar Rao v. Government of India (1971)1 MLJ.302 at page 324, paragraph 37, and it runs as follows: “In a case in which an officer's integrity-is not in doubt if his physical or mental condition is such as to make him inefficient for further service, it would be appropriate to consider him for premature retirement. However, in such cases, it may be desirable, once it has been decided with the approval of the Central Government to retire an officer prematurely, that the State Government first advise the officer to opt to retire under sub- rule (2) of rule 16 of the A.I.S. (DCRB) Rules; formal action under sub- rule (2) being taken only in the event of the officer failing to avail himself of this advice.” It is true that in the case dealt with by the Supreme Court, the impugned order of compulsory retirement was found to have come within the teeth of the criterion and procedure relating to review, But we find that the ratio of the Supreme Court with regard to the efficacy and the binding nature of these instructions is general. In unmistakable terms, the Supreme Court characterised these guidelines or instructions as filling up the yawning gap in the provisions and getting embedded in the conditions of service. The Supreme Court further opined that these guidelines or instructions get interwoven in rule 16(3) and can on no account be held invalid and impermissible. The petitioner wants to attack these guidelines or instructions as incompetent and void and he wants to go back and draw guidelines for the exercise of this power under rule 16(3), from a policy or a recommendation which, according to him, inspired the introduction of the rule. The ratio of the Supreme Court speaks otherwise and that alone should guide this Court with regard to the efficacy and the binding nature of these guidelines or instructions. As we could see from the guidelines or instructions, in a contingency, where the physical or mental condition of a member of the service is such as to make him inefficient for further service even though his integrity is not in doubt, the power to retire him compulsorily reserved under rule 16(3) can be invoked. As we could see from the guidelines or instructions, in a contingency, where the physical or mental condition of a member of the service is such as to make him inefficient for further service even though his integrity is not in doubt, the power to retire him compulsorily reserved under rule 16(3) can be invoked. It is pointed out that on 19.3.1974 further instructions were issued by the Central Government in the following terms: “I am directed to invite a reference to the letter No.29/67/6 A.I.S. (II) dated the 5th September, 1967 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, on the subject cited above and to say that according to the criteria laid down therein, in a case in which an officer's integrity is not in doubt but his physical or mental condition is such as to make him inefficient for further service, it would be appropriate to consider him for premature retirement. It has since further been laid down that in such cases it may be desirable first to advise the officer to opt to retire under sub- rule (2) of rule 16 of the All India Services (D.C.R. Benefits) Rules, 1958 and that action under sub- rule (3) of the said rules 1958 should be taken only in the event of the officer failing to avail himself of the advice. This provision was made on the ground that premature retirement as a consequence of a notice served by the officer on the Government, would from the point of view of the officer, be preferable to one arising from a notice served by the Government on the officer. It is, however, felt that on the basis of this provision, it can be contended in a court of law that the Government itself considers that premature retirement arising from a notice served by it on the officer carries a stigma and as such a retirement would attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. It has accordingly been decided to delete this criteria from the office memorandum No.29/67/6 dated the 5th September, 1967 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. It has accordingly been decided to delete this criteria from the office memorandum No.29/67/6 dated the 5th September, 1967 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Thus those members of the All India Services whose integrity is not in doubt but their physical or mental condition is such as to render them inefficient for further services, would not have to be advised to retire from the service under sub- rule (2) of the rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 and such officers should also be retired by the Government in public interest.” This deletion is immaterial and it is only with reference to the request to the officer to opt for voluntary retirement under rule 16(2) and we need not examine the wisdom behind this action of deletion. Rut the fact remains that the criterion enabling the Central Government to consider a member of the service for premature retirement on the ground of his physical or mental condition has been preserved and has not been disturbed. 9. Then the further question is whether the first respondent is bound to follow rules 13 and 15 alone on the basis that the petitioner was physically incapacitated and the first respondent ought not to have fallen back on rule 16(3). The law on compulsory retirement has now been well settled by pronouncements of the Supreme Court. Healing with rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, contemplating compulsory retirement, on satisfying the conditions set out therein, in Tara Singh, etc. v. State of Rajasthan and others Tara Singh, etc. v. State of Rajasthan and others (1975)4 S.C.C.86=(1975) Lab.I.C.1046=A.I.R.1975 S.C.1487 the Supreme Court observed as follows: “The right to be in public employment is a right to hold it according to rules. The right to hold is defeasible according to rules. The rules speak of compulsory retirement. There is guidance in the rules as to when such compulsory retirement is made. When persons complete 25 years of service and the efficiency of such persons in impaired and yet it is desirable not to bring any charge of inefficiency or incompetency, the Government passes orders of such compulsory retirement. The Government servant in such a, case does not lose the benefits which a Government servant has already earned. These orders of compulsory retirement are made in public interest. The Government servant in such a, case does not lose the benefits which a Government servant has already earned. These orders of compulsory retirement are made in public interest. This is the safety valve of making such orders so that no arbitrariness or bad faith creeps in.” Rule 16(3) of the Rules, as stated above, was the subject-matter of scrutiny in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam and others State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandra Mohan Nigam and others (1978)1 Lab.L.J.6=(1977)4 S.C.C.345=A.I.R.1977 S.C.2411 and the Supreme Court has observed as follows: “Under rule 16(2), a Government servant has a right to retire prematurely by giving three months’ previous notice to the Government. Similarly under rule 16(3), after a Government servant serves a period of 30 years or attains the age of 50 years, he cannot insist on a right to be retained in the service. The Government may also exercise a corresponding right under rule 16(3) to prematurely retire him at -the age of 50 or 55 after giving three month's notice. This termination of service by way of premature retirement cannot be equated with a penal order of removal or dismissal. Even so, an order or compulsory retirement may be challenged in a Court if it is arbitrary or is actuated by mala fides.” “Under Article 310, Government servants, high or low, hold service during the pleasure of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, subject to two well-known limitations namely, that they shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which they were appointed and secondly, that they shall not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry into the charges clearly levelled against them and affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the charges. We need not refer to the proviso to Article 311(2) which deals with certain exceptional cases. Thus the pleasure doctrine under Article 310 is conditioned by constitutional restrictions under Article 311. Under Article 309 appropriate legislature may regulate the recruitment and conditions of service and until so done the President or his delegate and the Governor or his delegate may make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service. Thus the pleasure doctrine under Article 310 is conditioned by constitutional restrictions under Article 311. Under Article 309 appropriate legislature may regulate the recruitment and conditions of service and until so done the President or his delegate and the Governor or his delegate may make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service. The Act passed by the appropriate legislature and the rules made under Article 309 will, however, be subject to the provisions of the Constitution which include Article 311 and certainly the fundamental rights. The pleasure doctrine under Article 310 is in a way unoffendingly resuscitated with appropriate vigour towards the tail end of the career of a Government servant under rule 16(3) in the public interest. Compulsory retirement under the service rules is not by way of punishment, as understood in service jurisprudence, however unsavoury it may be otherwise. During the entire tenure of Government servants from the date of temporary or probationary appointment till termination or retirement, as the case may, be, there is an undoubted security for them against dismissal, removal or reduction in rank except in the manner laid down under Article 311(2), read with relevant laws or rules made under Article 309.” In our view, the power reserved for the Central Government under rule 16(3) should not be mixed up with the power under rules 13 and15. This is an independent power reserved for the Central Government to be exercised in public interest and what is public interest has been defined by the instructions issued by the Central Government, already referred to. It will certainly take in a case, where a member of the service suffers physical or mental incapacity, on account of which his services could not be counted to be efficient. The rule that the special provision must exclude the general provision has no application at all to the instant case. We have already noted that his is a power reserved for the Central Government to retire a member of the service prematurely, in public interest and what is public interest has been set out in the guidelines or instructions in unambiguous terms, to include a case where a member of the service, on account of his physical or mental incapacity is considered to be inefficient. The factor, which weigher with the respondents to compulsorily retire the petitioner, was his physical condition, which was considered such as to make him inefficient for further service, taking note of the functions of the office, which he held. This is the specific stand of the respondents. As pointed by the Supreme Court in Tara Singh etc v. State of Rajas-than and others Tara Singh etc v. State of Rajas-than and others (1975)4 S.C.C.86=A.I.R. 1975 S.C.1487 the right to be in public employment is a right to held it according to rules; the rules speak of compulsory retirement, and there is guidance in the rules, as to when compulsory retirement is to be made. When the power of compulsory retirement is exercised in accordance with the rules, on the satisfaction of the conditions set out therefore, to state that some other process, also under the rules ought to have been resorted to, instead of the process of compulsory retirement, will be practically nullifying the very power of compulsory retirement, equally so, we do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioner that there has been a violation of the principle that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all, and that the other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. Here we find that the power of compulsory retirement had been exercised only in accordance and compliance with the rules, and there had been no departure from the procedure prescribed therefor. When rules 13 and15 need not be resorted to and in fact had not been resorted to, to complain that the procedure under the said rules ought to have been followed is unacceptable. The reliance placed by the petitioner in this behalf on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and others State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and others (1965)1 S.C.J.184=(1965) MLJ. (Crl.) 72=A.I.R.1964 S.C.358 and Capt. Virendra Kumar v. Union of India Capt. Virendra Kumar v. Union of India (1981)2 S.C.J.92=(1981) Lab.I.C.433=(1981)1 S.C.C.485=A.I.R.1981 S.C.947 is not tenable. 10. The petitioner would contend that his compulsory retirement, based on paragraph 5 of the instructions, would offend the equality provisions of the Constitution of India. This is not correct because the rule regarding compulsory retirement does not deny equality before the law or equal opportunity of employment. 10. The petitioner would contend that his compulsory retirement, based on paragraph 5 of the instructions, would offend the equality provisions of the Constitution of India. This is not correct because the rule regarding compulsory retirement does not deny equality before the law or equal opportunity of employment. Compulsory retirement is to be ordered only in public interest and every servant of the State is equally liable to be compulsorily retired in public interest under the’ rule. The rule certainly does not distinguish between one servant, who deserves to be compulsorily retired in public interest and another servant who also deserves it. In T.G.Shivacharan Singh v. The State of Mysore T.G.Shivacharan Singh v. The State of Mysore (1967)2 Lab.L.J. 246=A.I.R.1965 S.C.280, the contention that such a rule contravenes Article 14 as well Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India was repelled on the ground that this contention was negatived by a long series of decisions of the Supreme Court. This view of the Supreme Court has been taken note of and followed by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Abdul Ahad v. The Inspector-General of Police, U.P.Lucknow and others Abdul Ahad v. The Inspector-General of Police, U.P.Lucknow and others A.I.R.1965 Allahabad 142 and subsequently by a single Judge of the same High Court in R.S. Raizada v. Stats of Uttar Pradesh and others R.S.Rai-zada v. Stats of Uttar Pradesh and others A.I.R.1971 Allahabad 271. What is ‘public interest’ is a matter for the Government to consider and in the absence of arbitrariness or mala fides, that is not open for judicial review and it will not be proper for the Court to substitute its own opinion that it will not be in the public interest to compulsorily retire a member of the service. In T.G. Shivacharana Singh v. The State of Mysore T.G.Shivacharana Singh v. The State of Mysore (1967)2 Lab. L.J.246=A.I.R.1965 S.C.280, it was stated that “whether or not the petitioner's retirement was in the public interest, is a matter for the State Government to consider” and as to the plea that the order is arbitrary and illegal, the Supreme Court found it impossible to hold on the materials placed before it that the said order suffers from the vice of mala fides. 11. 11. The petitioner would also contend that the retirement for physical inefficiency is a punishment, attaching a stigma and hence violating Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, he placed reliance on a pronouncement of the Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in S. P. Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh S.P. Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R.1971 M.P.20. In that case, there was a compulsory retirement on invalid petition, on the ground of physical incapacity. No provision was brought to the notice of the Bench, on permitted to retire a Government: want on invalid pension. In that context, the Bench opined that the action is a punitive one. No support could be derived by the petitioner from that case to his case. Furthermore in the present case, the impugned order by itself does not mention anything about the petitioner's physical condition and inefficiency and certainly there could not be a complaint of a stigma. 12. The learned single Judge has put estoppel also against the petitioner, countenancing the plea of the first respondent in this behalf. This plea was projected on the ground that the petitioner withdrew his memorial to the Central Government by his letter, dated 6.5.1976. The petitioner would submit that the letter of withdrawal was during the period of emergency and it was prompted by wrong impression of law and hence estoppel should not be put against him. We need not strain over this aspect, because we fee¡ obliged to sustain the order of compulsory retirement repelling the very grounds of attack put forth against it by the petitioner. 13. The petitioner would contend that the nature of his illness was not such as to totally in capcitate him from discharging even bench work and in the cadre of Deputy Inspector-General of Police there are less rigorous posts in which he could be accommodated. This approach will be putting a qualification of the power reserved for the Central Government to compulsorily retire a member of the service, even though the conditions under rule 16(3) read along with the instructions stand satisfied. It is not for the Court to dictate to the Government that inspite of its opinion that on account of the physical condition, the officer is inefficient for further service, to consider him for less rigorous assignments, in the absence of arbitrariness or mala fides tainting that opinion. It is not for the Court to dictate to the Government that inspite of its opinion that on account of the physical condition, the officer is inefficient for further service, to consider him for less rigorous assignments, in the absence of arbitrariness or mala fides tainting that opinion. On the materials, disclosed, we could not characterise the step taken in this behalf as tainted with arbitrariness or mala fides. Public interest, as we have already noted, is not subject to judicial review, unless it is a case of exercise of power with arbitrariness or mala fides. We are not able to spell out any such theory in the instant case. It is not in dispute thar apart from the aspect of public interest over which the petitioner has raised a controversy, the other conditions contemplated in rule 16(3) stand fulfilled. 14. We also heard the petitioner saying something about the reliefs to be accorded to him. That would not arise in the present case because we have discountenanced the plea of the petitioner against the impugned order of compulsory retirement. For all these reasons, we are obliged to dismiss the writ appeal and accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. 15. After we pronounced the judgment the appellant prays for leave to appeal to Supreme Court. We find that we have adhered to the principles enunciated by the highest court in the land, while dismissing the writ appeal, and we do not think that the case involves any susbtantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Accordingly we refuse leave. Appeal dismissed.