S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. Feeling aggrieved by an order compulsory retiring the petitioner in exercise of the jurisdiction contemplated under Fundamental Rule 56 contained in the Financial Hand-book, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the said order. 2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that while the petitioner was holding the post of Munsarim Reader of the Court Vllth Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur, he had been compulsorily retired with effect from 31-3-1989. The present writ petition was filed on 24-4-1989 on which date an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order had been granted. 3. The parties have exchanged the affidavits and have requested that this writ petition be disposed of finally. It is accordingly being disposed of finally at this stage as contemplated under Second Proviso to Rule 2 (1) of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court. 4. The petitioner has asserted that he had completed the age of 55 years on 28-2-1989. It is also asserted that he had been granted promotions in the year 1967 and again in the year 1988. It is asserted that impugned order of compulsory retirement stands vitiated in law as it is based on certain adverse entries existing on the service record of the petitioner which are of a date anterior to the date of promotion and could not be taken into account and made the basis for compulsorily retiring the petitioner. It has been urged that the order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner stands vitiated in law and has the effect of curtailing the service tenure of the petitioner in an arbitrary manner without any justifiable basis. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent District Judge, it has been indicated that on 6-1-1989, the petitioners case along with 42 other employees who had crossed the age of 50 years on 19-10-1988 has been screened by a committee. It is also indicated that during the last ten years, the work of the petitioner had remained highly unsatisfactory and the com mittee had in this view of the matter taking into account the over all picture of the service record of the petitioner recommended for his compulsory retirement. It is also indicated that during the last ten years, the work of the petitioner had remained highly unsatisfactory and the com mittee had in this view of the matter taking into account the over all picture of the service record of the petitioner recommended for his compulsory retirement. In the counter-affidavit, however, it is not disputed that the petitioner was granted a promotion in the higher scale on 8th December, 1987 and assertion of the petitioner that he was granted another promotion in the year 1988 is also not disputed. The counter-affidavit indicates that both the promotions were routine promotions and had been given to the peti tioner on his turn. Counter-affidavit further indicated, that the promotions had no effect on the earlier entries which could not be deemed to have been wiped out. It is also asserted that the petitioner can be retired even if he had crossed the age of 55 years. 7. The provisions contained in the Subordinate Civil Courts Minis terial Establishment Rules, 1947 regulate the service conditions of the emplo yees in the Ministerial establishment of the Civil Court subordinate to the High Court Rule 20 of the aforesaid rules provides for promotion. A perusal of the aforesaid rules shows that except in cases of Amins, promotions have to be made according to seniority subject to efficiency or it has to be based on merit with due regard to seniority. These criterian govern the case of promotions to different ranks and grades excepting the cases of Amins and the post of Central Nazir or Central Nazirs from one grade to anothers which has to be made according to the Rules made from time to time by the High Court. Even in the cases of Amins the promotions from second to the first grade is made on the ground of superiority of general qualification irrespective of more length of service. In the circumstances therefore, the assertion that nothing turned upon the promotions in question appears to be totally misconceived. Further, assertions made in the counter-affidavit that the promotions given to the petitioner were routine promotions also not borne out from the rules governing the subject of promotion. 8. In the circumstances therefore, the assertion that nothing turned upon the promotions in question appears to be totally misconceived. Further, assertions made in the counter-affidavit that the promotions given to the petitioner were routine promotions also not borne out from the rules governing the subject of promotion. 8. It was pointed out by this Court in its decision in the case of Bent Madho Upadhaya v. Inspector General (Registration), U. P. , Allahabad and others, reported in 1993 3 UPLBEC 1944 after noticing several decisions of the Apex Court that the adverse entries awarded prior to the passing of the order of promotion lose their sting and these entries cannot be considered by the screening committee not an order of compulsory retirement under Rule 56 (1) of the Fundamental Rules can be passed on the strength of such entries. 9. The ratio of the decision in the case of 3aai Madho Upadhyay (supra) appears to be clearly attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. In the circumstances, sufficient ground has been made out for interference by this court. 11. In the result this writ petition succeeds and the impugned order, dated 31-3-1989 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service is hereby quashed with the direction that the petitioner will be entitled to all the conse quential benefits. There shall be, however, no orders as to costs. Petition allowed. .