G. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS special appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 11. 8. 1998 of a learned single Judge by which the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 4. 3. 1989 compulsorily retiring him from service was dismissed. ( 2 ) THE appellant Joined as clerk in Collectorate, Jalaun, in 1954. By the order dated 26. 6. 1984, he was placed in higher pay scale of Rs. 430-685 and by the order dated 11. 7. 1987, he was placed substantively in the aforesaid grade. On 4. 3. 1989, the District Magistrate exercising powers under Fundamental Rule 56 (c) passed an order compulsorily retiring the appellant from service in public interest. This order was challenged by the appellant by filing the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal. In the counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition, it was stated that the screening committee considered the case of the appellant and as there were 7 adverse entries in his character-roll, a decision was taken to retire him in public interest. These adverse entries related to loss of two Court files while working as Ahalmad to SDO/sdm, Jaiaun, whereby, he was debarred from posting in the Court line for three years, wrong submission of facts relating to mining leases and withholding of his integrity. In a matter relating to acquisition of land in 1985-86, a censure entry was awarded to him and his integrity was withheld on account of his misleading the authorities whereby a proposal was sent for exempting certain land from acquisition. The copy of the report to the screening committee as well as the adverse entries awarded to the appellant were filed with the counter-affidavit. ( 3 ) THE main contention of the appellant was that certain adverse entries given prior to the crossing of the efficiency bar or his promotion had been taken into consideration and therefore, the impugned order compulsorily retiring him from service was illegal. The learned single Judge did not accept the submission made by the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. The learned single Judge did not accept the submission made by the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. ( 4 ) IN the present special appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has made the same submission again, namely, that adverse entries given prior to the crossing of efficiency bar or promotion to higher grade could not have been taken into consideration by the screening committee and, consequently, the impugned order dated 4. 3. 1989 compulsorily retiring the appellant from service was illegal. Fundamental Rule 56 (c) of Financial Handbook. Vol 11. Parts 11 to IV, provides that the appointing authority may at any time by notice to any Government servant, without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of 50 years. This Rule which was made in exercise of power conferred by Section 241 of the Government of India Act was subsequently amended by an Act of U. P. Legislature, namely, the U. P. Fundamental Rule fifty Six (Amendment) Act. 1976. (U. P. Act No. 33 of 1976) which came into force on 16. 11. 1976. By the said amendment, an Explanation was added to Fundamental Rule 56 which reads as follows : "explanations.-- (1) The decision of the appointing authority under clause (c) to require the government servant to retire as specified therein shall be taken, if it appears to the said authority to be in the public interest, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to require any recital, in the order of such decision having been taken in the public interest. (2) In order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public interest to require a Government servant to retire under clause (c), the appointing authority may take into consideration any material relating to the Government servant and nothing herein contained shall be construed to exclude from consideration : (a) any entries relating to any period before such Government servant was allowed to cross any efficiency bar or before he was promoted to any post in an officiating or substantive capacity or on ad hoc basis ; or (b) any entry against which a representation is pending, provided that the representation is also taken into consideration along with the entry : or (c) any report of the Vigilance Establishment constituted under Uttar Pradesh Vigilance establishment Act, 1965. (2a) Every such decision shall be deemed to have been taken in the public interest. " The amending Act further provides that the Explanation shall be deemed to have been always there. ( 5 ) THE Rule after its amendment clearly postulates that the appointing authority may take into consideration any entries relating to any period before the Government servant was allowed to cross efficiency bar or before, he was promoted to any post in an officiating or substantive capacity or on ad hoc basis. Therefore, it was fully open to the appointing authority to lake into consideration any entries relating to any period before the appellant was allowed to cross efficiency bar or before he was promoted to any higher post. ( 6 ) IN State of Punjab v. Gurdas Singh. (1998) 4 SCC 92 , it was held as follows : "any adverse entry prior to earning of promotion or crossing of efficiency bar or picking up higher rank is not wiped out and can be taken into consideration while considering the overall performance of the employee during whole of his tenure of service, whether it is in public interest to retain him in the service. The whole record of service of the employee will include any uncommunicated adverse entries as well," ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on State of Gujarat and another v. Suryakant Chum Lal Shah, 11999) I SCC 529, in support of his submission. We have carefully gone through the authority cited by the learned counsel but we do not find that the said decision has any application to the facts of the case. It was observed in paragraph 11 of the reports that public interest in relation to public administration means that only honest and efficient persons arc to be retained in service while services of dishonest or corrupt or those who are almost dead wood are dispensed with. Another case cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. Madan mohan Chowdhury v. State of Bihar, (1999) 3 SCC 396 , also does not lay down anything which may help the appellant, ( 8 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed summarily at the admission stage. .