( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A. K. Pandey and Sri i. P. Singh for the Jal Nigam. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on 20. 1. 1978 in the u. P. Jal Nigam. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 4. 1. 1992 and on the post of Executive Engineer on 1/8/1997. The petitioner has been compulsorily retired by means of the order dated 1/9/2005 by invoking Fundamental Rule 56 (C) of financial Hand Book, Part II, Vol. 2 to 4. ( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY the service record of the last 10 years was considered by the screening Committee for the purpose of evaluating as to whether the petitioner should be retained in service or he should be compulsorily retired having lost his utility. The criteria for screening was as under: (i)marks were allocated to Annual Character Roll remarks, category-wise and in case the officer belongs to general category could not or did not acquire a minimum number of marks (9) on the basis of his Character Roll entries, he was liable to be retired compulsorily, which, in the case of an officer of Reserved category were only 6 marks. (ii)In case the officer had been awarded a punishment of recovery or he had deposited any amount towards recovery, as a result of some fault committed by him during his service period, it would constitute a ground for compulsory retirement. ( 4 ) THE petitioner was awarded marks as per criteria aforesaid, which were totalled as 5. 93. Since the petitioner could not achieve the marks which were minimum fixed for reserved category, the petitioner being of Backward Class, was not found fit for retaining in service. Apart from the aforesaid marking, the service record did contain one adverse entry for the year 2001-02. The aforesaid adverse entry has been recorded in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 18. 1. 2002, which says that some information which was required to be given to the Vidhan Parishad was not given satisfactorily and for that purpose an adverse entry be awarded. ( 5 ) AN extract of the adverse entry reads as under:" Ma. Vidhan Parishad ke pratham satra 2001 ke chhathe somvar hetu nirdharit atarankit prashna sankhya-4 ka uttar uplabdha karaye jane hetu shashan ke patra sankhya 5184/28. 5. ( 5 ) AN extract of the adverse entry reads as under:" Ma. Vidhan Parishad ke pratham satra 2001 ke chhathe somvar hetu nirdharit atarankit prashna sankhya-4 ka uttar uplabdha karaye jane hetu shashan ke patra sankhya 5184/28. 5. 2001 dinank 25 May-2001 dwara prabandh Nideshak, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Aykt Gramya Vikas evam mukhya Vikas Adhikari,allahabad ko nirdeshit kiya gaya tha parantu santoshjanak uttar na prapt hone ke karan shashan ke patra dinank 28. 6. 2001,15. 9. 2001 evam 29. 9. 2001 dwara Prabandh Nideshak,uttar Pradesh jal Nigam se puah santoshjanak uttar bhejne hetu kaha gaya parantu Sri hansraj, Adhisashi Abhiyanta, Ati Prakalp sakha, U. P. Jal Nigam,allahabad dwara prashna ka uttar santoshjanak roop se preshit nahin kiya gaya,jiske karan prashna anubhag, U. P. Shashan evam Ma. Sadasya ko uttar nahin bheja ja saka. Falswaroop Ma. Samiti ke samaksha shashan ko saksha dena para. Uproktanusar prashna ka santoshjanak evam samayantargat uttar na uplabdh karaye jane hetu Sri Hansraj,adhisashi Abhiyanta,ati. Prakalp sakha, u. P. Jal Nigam,alahabad ko "pratikool pravishti" di jati hai. " ( 6 ) THIS Office Memorandum has been annexed alongwith the counter affidavit filed by the Jal Nigam from where the petitioner could know about the said adverse entry, though the petitioner in the writ petition has stated that three was no adverse entry against him. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has taken the specific plea that this adverse entry was never communicated to him. Sri I. P. Singh looked into the record of the Jal Nigam, which was brought by the pairokar of the Jal Nigam and very candidly stated that the record does not show that the entry was communicated or not. ( 7 ) THE question as to whether the aforesaid entry was communicated to the petitioner or not is not of much significance, though the record does not show that the said entry was communicated and there is specific denial of the petitioner about the entry being communicated to him, the aforesaid entry even otherwise does not show as to what information was not given by the petitioner as Executive Engineer, when answer to the query made was asked for from the managing Director. It cannot be disputed that even the sole or lone adverse entry may be sufficient to compulsorily retire a government servant or a public servant but while doing so the nature of the entry and its gravity has to be kept in mind. The aforesaid entry does not show the seriousness of the failure on the part of the petitioner and his role in supplying the information but only a vague direction has been issued for recording the adverse entry against him. Even on the basis of the said entry, which has not been communicated to him, the petitioner could not have been declared a deadwood or unsuitable for retaining in service. ( 8 ) SO far as awarding of marks for finding out suitability of the public servant to remain in service is concerned, suffice would be to mention that we, in our judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 1888 (SB) of 2005: Mahesh Chandra Agarwal v. State of U. P. and others, decided on 27. 3. 06, have already declared that the said criteria was wholly arbitrary and illegal and cannot be allowed to sustain and, therefore, relying upon such marking system, the petitioner could not have been retired compulsorily. ( 9 ) IT would be appropriate to mention that the service record of the petitioner which was placed before the Screening Committee shows that there were five entries, which were unavailable for different periods. Sri I. P. Singh, appearing for the Jal Nigam, informs that for these unavailable entries, the petitioner was awarded 0 (zero) marks i. e. neither they were treated as adverse nor as good entries. ( 10 ) SINCE the Jal Nigam adopted the criteria of awarding marks on the basis of various Government Orders relevant for the purpose of promotion to the higher post,where the criteria is merit, it was reasonable for the Jal Nigam to adopt the same principle which is adopted by the State Government in the case of unavailable entries. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the State submits that in case the entries are not available for a particular year or years in the departments of the State, either they are treated as satisfactory and one mark is given or the entry is assessed on the basis of other entries of the past and future. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the State submits that in case the entries are not available for a particular year or years in the departments of the State, either they are treated as satisfactory and one mark is given or the entry is assessed on the basis of other entries of the past and future. In either of the criterion 0 marks could not have been given to such absent entries. The petitioner has been awarded 5. 93 marks whereas he was required to have only 6 marks. In this view of the matter also, it cannot not be said that the petitioner did not achieve the minimum number of marks, as determined by the Nigam for being retained in service. This observation we have made with a view to indicate that the criteria of awarding marks, though has not been upheld by us, even if applied in the present case, would make the petitioner worthy of being retained in service. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we hold that the order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained, as there was no material on the basis of which it could be concluded that the petitioner has lost his utility and is no more fit to be retained in service. The impugned order of compulsory retirement is, therefore, liable to be quashed. ( 13 ) THE order of compulsory retirement dated 1. 9. 2005,contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits and shall be allowed to continue till he reaches the age of superannuation. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. .