JUDGMENT Hon’ble Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Mr. Ritu Raj Awasthi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. l.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2nd September, 2005 passed by the Chief Engineer, U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow, whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Junior Engineer (E/M) vide office order dated 14/26th December, 1977 and thereafter he was confirmed on the said post vide order dated 12th March, 1984 w.e.f. 25.12.1983 and the petitioner was allowed to cross the first Efficiency Bar in the pay scale of Rs. 550-1020 vide order dated 23.3.1987 with effect from 1.7.1984 and after completion of ten years of satisfactory service on the post of Junior Engineer he was placed in the higher pay scale i.e. 850-1350 vide order dated 30.9.1988. On 1.1.1992 he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (E/M), U.P. Jal Nigam. 4. On 25th November, 1995 the petitioner was placed under suspension with the allegation that he submitted a wrong caste certificate. The petitioner belonged to the caste ‘Bhar’, which was notified as Scheduled Tribe by the Government Order dated 26.3.1962 and he was also issued the caste certificate dated 26.8.1977 by Tehsildar Rasara, district Ballia. However, subsequently by way of Government Order dated 10.7.1986 the said caste was notified in the list of backward caste. In pursuance of the suspension order the departmental enquiry held. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report to the disciplinary authority that the petitioner has not committed any such forgery as the said caste certificate was issued by the Tehsildar Rasara, district Ballia. However, by way of punishment order dated 27.2.1999 the petitioner was reverted to the post of Junior Engineer on the ground that when the petitioner was given promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer he was coming under the category of backward caste so he was not entitled for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer under the Scheduled Tribe quota. 5. The petitioner submits that he worked as Assistant Engineer with effect from 1.1.1992 to 27.1.1999 and he was placed under suspension during the period of 25.11.1995 to 22.11.1996, which was revoked by office order dated 26.11.1996 and he was given full salary for the suspension period. 5. The petitioner submits that he worked as Assistant Engineer with effect from 1.1.1992 to 27.1.1999 and he was placed under suspension during the period of 25.11.1995 to 22.11.1996, which was revoked by office order dated 26.11.1996 and he was given full salary for the suspension period. On 2nd September, 2000 the petitioner was awarded the time scale on completion of 15 years of satisfactory service with effect from 9.2.1993. On 15.11.2001 he was given one extra increment after completion of 19 years of satisfactory service with effect from 9.2.1997. He submits that he was entitled to get the higher/promotional pay scale on completion of 24 years of satisfactory service and in this regard the selection committee was scheduled to be held in January, 2005 and July, 2005, but the same could not be held, due to which the promotional pay scale has not been sanctioned to the petitioner so far. 6. On the strength of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the petitioner submits that there was no material at all before the Screening Committee for recommendation to retire him compulsorily. The petitioner has also attacked on the authority of Mr. A. K. Seth, who being appointing authority has issued the order impugned submitting therein that he was not holding the post of Chief Engineer as one Mr. Kamesh Srivastava was working as Chief Engineer (E-2-2). He further submits that the Screening Committee was to look into only the annual entries of preceding ten years. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been submitted that Mr. A.K. Seth, Chief Engineer (A-2-2), who has passed the order impugned was working on the post under the interim order of this Hon’ble Court even after his age of superannuation and as such he was having financial and administrative powers on the date on which he passed the order i.e. 31.7.2005 the date when he signed the office order. The respondents have further submitted that the petitioner was given promotion on the basis of forged certificate and when it came to the knowledge of the authorities concerned the action has been taken against the petitioner and he has rightly been reverted to the post of Junior Engineer. 8. The respondents have further submitted that the petitioner was given promotion on the basis of forged certificate and when it came to the knowledge of the authorities concerned the action has been taken against the petitioner and he has rightly been reverted to the post of Junior Engineer. 8. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder affidavit controverting the submissions of the respondents wherein he has submitted that the impugned order was deliberately signed on a back date by Mr. A.K. Seth. However, on the date of issuance of the order i.e. 2nd September, 2005 he was not competent authority or appointing authority of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the caste certificate issued from the office of the District Magistrate was found genuine, but since before the date of promotion ‘Bhar’ caste was notified as backward caste, the disciplinary authority has held that on that date he was not entitled for promotion and has reverted the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer, but at any cost it cannot be said that the caste certificate issued by the authority concerned was forged one. 9. As per directions of this Court the learned Counsel for the respondents has placed the relevant original record of the office. The respondents have placed the Screening Committee report of the petitioner, in which the entries are recorded in the annual character roll as under : 1995-96 5-Santoshjanak (Satisfactory) 7-Aprapt (not received) 1996-97 Aprapt (Not received) 1997-98 Uttam (Good) 1998-99 7-Uttam (Good) 5-Aprapt (not received) 1999-00 Aprapt (not received) 2000-01 Aprapt (not received) 2001-02 Santoshjanak (Satisfactory) 2002-03 Ati Uttam (Very Good) 2003-04 Aprapt (not received) 10. In the column of comments it has been indicated that vide order dated 27.2.1994 of the Chief Engineer the petitioner has been reverted from the post of Assistant Engineer (E/M) to the post of Junior Engineer. Except this noting nothing is there in the annual character roll of the petitioner. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314 , relying upon the judgment of Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, (1992) 2 SCC 299 summarized the principles of compulsory retirement in paragraph 11, which is quoted below : “11. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314 , relying upon the judgment of Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District Medical Officer, (1992) 2 SCC 299 summarized the principles of compulsory retirement in paragraph 11, which is quoted below : “11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarized thus : (i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.” 12. After going through the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is obvious that the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard of the entire service record of the officer and by taking into account the adverse entries made in the character roll. However, in this case I have not found any adverse entry in the annual record of the petitioner rather he has been given extra increments vide order dated 15.11.2001 w.e.f. 9.2.1997. The order of reversion does not lead towards the performance of the petitioner in service but it has been passed on the ground that in light of subsequent notification petitioner ceased to be scheduled tribe on account of which he was not entitled for promotion under the quota of scheduled tribe. 13. The order of reversion does not lead towards the performance of the petitioner in service but it has been passed on the ground that in light of subsequent notification petitioner ceased to be scheduled tribe on account of which he was not entitled for promotion under the quota of scheduled tribe. 13. It, also, cannot be said that the caste certificate was forged one as it was issued by the competent authority and at that time the ‘Bhar’ caste was within the category of scheduled tribe. 14. Thus in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court I find that there was no material before the Screening Committee to make the recommendation for petitioner to retire him compulsorily, on account of which I hereby quash the order impugned dated 2.9.2005 by issuing a writ of certiorari and it is provided that the petitioner shall be treated in service till the age of superannuation. 15. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed. ———