ORDER : 1. Special leave granted. 2. We have heard counsel on both sides. 3. We find that the respondent was prematurely retired in exercise of power under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules in public interest before he attained the age of superannuation. The Annual Confidential Reports from 1988 to 1992 were taken into consideration and the Reports of the last five years from 1989 to 1992 were found to be very bad being average or below average. Only the report of the year 1988 was categorised as good. It was after perusing the C.R. dossier for the last five years, an overall view was taken and he was considered not fit for continuance in service on his attaining the age of 55 years on 13.3.94. The Review Committee's opinion would show that he had been punished in the past and there were serious charges pending against him at the relevant point of time. Merely because he had passed the examination necessary for promotion does not mean that he could not be prematurely retired from service. It must be remembered that compulsory retirement under Rule 56(j) is not by way of a punishment but because it is considered that the incumbent cannot play any useful role or make any purposeful contribution to the institution in which he is serving. If a person with a poor record, such as one mentioned above, is retired from service prematurely, it is certainly in public interest, because he has virtually become a dead wood and cannot make any useful contribution at the level at which he is serving. It must also be remembered that a civil servant may be able to perform reasonably well upto a point in service, but that very person may not be found fit to discharge more responsible duties as he moves up vertically in service. Therefore, merely because an incumbent may have a partially good record upto a point does not necessarily mean that his services cannot be terminated prematurely even if it is found that has since deteriorated or is not suitable to shoulder the responsibilities at the higher level. 4. Our attention was invited by learned counsel for the respondent to the decision of this Court in Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr., (1992) 2 SCC 299 . 4. Our attention was invited by learned counsel for the respondent to the decision of this Court in Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr., (1992) 2 SCC 299 . In particular, the learned counsel placed emphasis on the observation in paragraph 34 (iv) wherein it is stated that "the Government shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter- of course attaching more importance to the record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential record/ character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a Government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority." We are afraid that these observations do not help the respondent. In the first place merely passing the departmental examination to become eligible for promotion cannot efface the adverse entires (average is considered an adverse entry) for the last five years. Besides in evaluating the overall record, the Review Committee has to attach more importance to the record of, and performance during, the later years and that is what the Review Committee did in the instant case when it found that the record for the last five years of the respondent was very had. Besides, as we stated above, in evaluating the overall record one must keep in mind the fact that an individual has certain limitations and he may be able to function reasonably well upto a point but beyond that he may prove to be an inefficient or incompetent person - one who has ceased to be of any utility to the institution and is incapable of making any useful contribution to the institution. 5. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the instant case the High Court was wrong in thinking that the order was not made in public interest, but because of bad record on account of which he was not found fit to continue. If an individual has a had record because of which he ceases to be of any utility to the institution, it would be in public interest to compulsorily retire such a person. We are afraid that the High Court did not properly appreciate the matter. If an individual has a had record because of which he ceases to be of any utility to the institution, it would be in public interest to compulsorily retire such a person. We are afraid that the High Court did not properly appreciate the matter. We cannot allow the decision to stand. 6. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore the order passed by the Department of compulsory retirement, holding that his writ petition is without merit. By allowing this appeal, we dismiss the writ petition itself with costs throughout.