JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was a Judicial Officer who has been compulsorily retired under Rule 244(2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rules' hereinafter), by an order dated July 27, 1985 issued by His Excellency the Governor. According to the petitioner this order is bad as it does not satisfy the condition of the Officer's having completed 25 years of qualifying service or the Officer's completing 50 years of age. It is also contended that there was no basis for holding that it was in public interest to compulsorily retire the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner who was born on July 15, 1937 had not completed 50 years of age on the date of his retirement in the year 1985. It was also contended that the petitioner's date of appointment in the Rajasthan Judicial Service was August 1, 1960 and he would have completed 25 years of service on July 31, 1985. According to the petitioner, the Order dated July 27, 1985 compulsorily retiring the petitioner could not have been issued legally on that day as on July 27, 1985 he had neither completed 50 years of age nor completed 25 years of qualifying service. 2. Clause (i) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rules, which provides for compulsory retirement after completion of 25 years of service, reads as under: R. 24(2). Compulsory retirement after completion of 25 years of service :- (i) The Appointing Authority shall have the absolute right to retire in public interest any Government servant, by giving him at least three months' previous notice in writing, from service on the date on which he completed 25 years of qualifying service or on the date on which he attains the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, or on any date thereafter: Provided that such Government servant may be retired from service forthwith, and on such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to claim three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice.The requirements of Clause (i) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rules are completion of 25 years of qualifying service on the date of retirement or completion of 50 years of age on the date of the retirement. Three months' previous notice in writing or payment of three months' pay and allownances in lieu thereof has also been provided. 3. Three months' previous notice in writing or payment of three months' pay and allownances in lieu thereof has also been provided. 3. The Rule does not provide that the order for retirement from a future date cannot be passed in any event. It also does not require that the cases for compulsory retirement of Officers can be considered only after they complete 25 years of qualifying service or 50 years of age. The only requirement of the Rule is that on the date on which a Government servant is compulsorily retired, he should have completed 25 years of qualifying service or should have attained the age of 50 years as the case may be. 4. In the present case, though on the date of the issue of the order passed by His Excellency the Governor, the petitioner had not completed 25 years of qualifying service or 50 years of age on the date of retirement the petitioner had completed 25 years of qualifying service. Order (Ex. 1) dated July 27, 1985 clearly states that the Governor of Rajasthan on the recommendation of the Rajasthan High Court was pleased to retire the petitioner in public interest from service from the date of receipt of the order. Admittedly this order was received by the petitioner on August 3, 1985. Hence the date of compulsory retirement of the petitioner would be August 3, 1985 and not prior to August 1, 1985. It cannot therefore be disputed that on August 3, 1985, the petitioner had completed 25 years of qualifying service and there was no violation of Rule 244 (2) of the Rules in his case on that count. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner has been paid salary upto August 3, 1985 as also three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice. 5. The petitioner has alleged that the order of compulsory retirement was mala fide passed and it was not in public interest. One of the grounds of mala fides alleged by the petitioner is his reversion from the post of District & Sessions Judge to the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate. This ground would not survive because that action was challenged by the petitioner in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. A Review Petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. 6. This ground would not survive because that action was challenged by the petitioner in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. A Review Petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. 6. The petitioner next contended that his application for voluntary retirement was kept hanging and he was not allowed to retire voluntarily. It appears that this application for voluntary retirement was made by the petitioner apprehending that he would not be allowed to continue as District and Sessions Judge as in the application itself, he had prayed for voluntary retirement w.e.f. April 1, 1985 on the post of District and Sessions Judge' and on his 'present emoluments as District and Sessions Judge.' The notice of voluntary retirement was therefore conditional and not a clear notice as required under Rule 244(1) of the Rules. Moreover this application was also withdrawn by the petitioner on December 26, 1984. When the petitioner was compulsorily retired on August 3, 1985 there was no application pending for voluntary retirement as it was withdrawn almost over seven months before. It cannot therefore be said that the petitioner was compulsorily retired mala fide instead of allowing him to voluntarily retire under Rule 244 (1) of the Rules. 7. So far as the argument that it was not in public interest to retire the petitioner, the record of the petitioner has been produced by the respondent No. 1 and extracts from it have been given in the reply of respondent No. 1. There are adverse entries in the confidential records about the petitioner in the years 1962, 1963, 1964, 1968, 1969, 1972, 1974, 1976, 1979 and 1983. Many of these entries relate to his reputation and integrity. All this material was considered by a Committee of Judges and by the Full Court. It cannot be said that the decision taken by the Full Court to advise the State Government to compulsorily retire the petitioner was based on no material or that from the record of the petitioner it could not have been said that it was in public interest to compulsorily retire him. 8. It cannot be said that the decision taken by the Full Court to advise the State Government to compulsorily retire the petitioner was based on no material or that from the record of the petitioner it could not have been said that it was in public interest to compulsorily retire him. 8. Let us now turn to the case law:The decision of the Supreme Court in Hans Raj v.State of a Punjab and others, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 69 was cited on behalf of the petitioner for the proposition that 25 years or qualifying service should have been completed on the date of the order of compulsory retirement. It was not a case where the order of compulsory retirement was issued before the completion of 25 years of qualifying service but made effective from the date on which 25 years of qualifying service was complete. It was a case where the point involved was that when there was break in service whether the earlier service could be counted as qualifying service or not. The decision is therefore distinguishable on facts and does not apply to the present case. 9. In E. Venkateshwararao Naidu v. Union of India, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 698, the next case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in paragraph - 7 it was observed that though the notice of compulsory retirement was served on July 22, 1965, the crucial date would be the date on which the notice was issued viz. July 15, 1965. The observation cannot be read out of context. The question to be decided there was whether the amended fundamental rule would apply to the case or not. The Court merely held that the notice which was valid when it was issued could not become invalid by reason of the fact that the Rule on which it was founded had undergone an amendment before the notice was received by the appellant. The case is clearly distinguishable on facts and does not apply to the present case. 10. The Court merely held that the notice which was valid when it was issued could not become invalid by reason of the fact that the Rule on which it was founded had undergone an amendment before the notice was received by the appellant. The case is clearly distinguishable on facts and does not apply to the present case. 10. The Single Bench decisions of this Court in Bahadur Singh v. State of Raj, 1981(2) S.L.R. 583 , and Poonam Chand v. State of Raj, 1977 W.L.N. 615 have no application to the facts of this case as on the view we have taken, 25 years of qualifying service was complete on the date of retirement and there was no necessity of counting the earlier service of the petitioner as Stenographer. 11. On behalf of the respondents a Division Bench decision of this Court in M.P. Mittal v. Rajasthan High Court and others, 1990(2) S.L.R.,111 was cited for the proposition that under the High Court Rules a Screening Committee could be appointed to examine the cases of Rule 244(2) of the Rules and such a Committee could examine the entire service record and can enquire about the image or reputation and integrity of the officers concerned. We agree with the view.For the aforesaid reasons, we find no force in this petition, which is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. *******