R. A. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, who is Tahbazari Wasul Karta, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated April 18, 1991, whereby he has been compulsorily retired from service. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS have filed counter affidavit and the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that in pursuance of the Government Order, screening Committee was constituted which examined the work and records of service of the petitioner and the same being not up to the mark, the Screening Committee recommended compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Accordingly the impugned order was passed. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions, namely, (i) there was no adverse entry against him during the last ten years and the impugned order has been passed without disclosing the reason as to why the petitioner has been retired from service and (ii) Government vide order dated December 21, 1989 has laid down the time schedule for the Screening committee but in the instant case the same has been violated on account of which the impugned order cannot be passed. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel. ( 5 ) IN pursuance of the Government order the Screening Commitee was constituted, which has examined the work and record of the petitioner. The Screening Committee having found the same unsatisfactory and not up to the mark, was fully justified in resolving for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. It is not necessary that the order of compulsory retirement should be a speaking order. It is a different matter that when the order is challenged the State is required to disclose as to why and under what circumstances such an order was passed; but that does not mean that the order should contain the reason. In the instant case the reasons for passing the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner have been disclosed in the counter-affidavit. Merely because there is no adverse entry communicated to the petitioner during the last ten years, it does not necessarily mean that the work and conduct of the petitioner was satisfactory. In the instant case the reasons for passing the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner have been disclosed in the counter-affidavit. Merely because there is no adverse entry communicated to the petitioner during the last ten years, it does not necessarily mean that the work and conduct of the petitioner was satisfactory. In Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer 1992 (64) FLR 1090 (SC) it was laid down that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot examine the matter as an appellate Court and it can interfere with the order of retirement only on the ground of mala fide, no evidence or arbitrariness. In the instant case no such ground has been made out. ( 6 ) AS regards the second submission, it may be mentioned that the Government has laid down time schedule for screening the service record of the employee; but this is not the rule of limitation. Time fixed even by the statute for performing the public duties is generally treated as directory. In the instant case time is not fixed even by the statute. The impugned order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner cannot be declared to be invalid, merely because it was passed sometime after the time schedule fixed for screening of the record. ( 7 ) THE writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. .