JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.K. Kalia, Senior Advocate and Sri I.P. Singh for the respondent Jal Nigam. 2. The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer in the U.P. Jal Nigam, has been compulsorily retired, vide order dated 2.9.2005, by the appointing authority in exercise of his powers under Fundamental Rule 56 (C). 3. The petitioner assails the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement mainly on the following grounds : (i) the criteria applied for screening out the dead wood was arbitrary and manifestly illegal; (ii) the criteria of allocation of marks to the annual entries as per categorization made therein cannot be said to be a valid and reasonable criteria for determining a case of compulsory retirement; (iii) the reduction of marks to the extent of one each for every adverse entry or for punishment awarded during the course of service is also not inconsonance with the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 (C) or otherwise, which also vitiates the entire exercise of screening of dead wood or inefficient officers; (iv) there was no adverse material against the petitioner so as to form an opinion on objective consideration for retiring him compulsorily and the entries/material, which has been shown in the counter affidavit was hardly relevant for the said purpose; 4. Sri I.P. Singh, appearing for Jal Nigam, refuting the claim of the petitioner, urged that the petitioners service record as indicated in the counter affidavit shows that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service and, therefore, no fault can be attributed to the action taken by the appointing authority in passing the order of compulsory retirement. 5. 5. It may be pertinent to mention here that the criteria, which was adopted by the Screening Committee was to see the entire record of the service with more weightage to the recent ten years record and that the following criteria was adopted for determining the worth of the officers for being retained or being ousted from service : (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. 6. To cut the controversy short, the question regarding reasonableness, validity and legality of the criteria of awarding marks in the manner in which they are awarded in a selection for promotion, in which the criteria is merit came up for consideration before us in Writ Petition No. 1888 (SB) of 2005, Mahesh Chandra Agarwal v. State of U.P. and others and we found that the aforesaid criteria was unreasonable, illegal and against the parameters of Fundamental Rule 56 (C). The reasoning given by Division Bench is as follows : "The criteria, which is applicable in the matter of promotion based on merit cannot be applied for screening out the officers for compulsory retirement. The purpose of the two Committees namely; selection for promotion and the Screening Committee for screening out the officers from service is entirely different. In the matter of promotion the comparative merit" of the officers is to be seen so as to promote him on higher post and burden him with more responsibilities whereas in the screening the officers past conduct, performance, behaviour and service record is to be seen only for the purpose of finding out as to whether the officer has lost his utility and has become a dead-wood. The Committee has to form an opinion that the officer is of no use for being retained in service or that he has become a dead wood or that he is a person of doubtful integrity or dishonest or inefficient. Yardstick which would be applicable in the case of promotion cannot be applied nor would be applicable in the case of compulsory retirement insofar as the award of marks is concerned in the matter of promotion based strict on merit". It is the most meritorious officer under consideration for promotion, would be selected, may be that there may be meritorious officers though less in the merit than the person(s) selected but that would not mean that those persons were not fit for promotion or that it would constitute any adverse material for the purpose of compulsory retirement. Even if, a Government servant, in the matter of promotion is not found suitable, that itself alone may not be a ground for retiring him compulsorily, of course, unless his past record of service alongwith aforesaid fact for not being found suitable for promotion permits the Screening Committee or Appointing Authority to form such an opinion. ..................................... We further hold that the criteria of awarding marks and requiring the officer under scrutiny to obtain minimum lower marks for being retained and continued in service was not based on any intelligible criteria, apart from being wholly arbitrary and illegal. The compulsory retirement has to be considered within the parameters of Fundamental Rule 56 (C) of the Financial Hand Book Volume (2), which does not envisage any such scheme. It is the entire service record with due weightage to the record of recent past, has to be considered and if the Committee or the Screening Committee or the Appointing Authority reaches the satisfaction on the basis of objective consideration that the concerned officer has lost his utility or is dishonest or lacks integrity or is inefficient and it is not in public interest to retain him in service, he is to be compulsorily retired. ............................ ............................ While considering the case of a public servant it is not only the Character Roll which would be relevant either for retaining the officer or public servant in service or for screening him out, but such consideration would also go to the other materials in the service record namely; e.g. appreciation letters or certificates of commendable work by higher or superior authorities or to say of the competent authority or if there is material which though does not find mention in the Character Roll entry but either appreciates or deprecates the work and conduct of the public servant or shows his or her shortcomings or in any other way reflects his or her character, integrity and reputation. All such material cannot be lost sight by the Screening Committee and has to be considered while making an assessment. Thus relying only upon the award of marks as against the annual remarks on the basis of criteria of promotion strictly on the basis of merit" cannot be supported to, under the aforesaid provision." 7. The criteria of deducting/reducing marks one each for every adverse entry or punishment also cannot be upheld nor can be said to be legal or reasonable. Since we have already held that criteria of awarding marks was wholly arbitrary and unreasonable and consequently the marks can also not be deducted nor can be allocated to the adverse entry or to any punishment. If the marks cannot be allocated for judging the suitability/worth of the officer, the question of reduction of marks would not arise. We, accordingly, hold that neither the allocation of marks which are awarded in the selection where the criteria is merit nor the reduction for the said purpose as against each adverse entry or punishment can be upheld. 8. Sri I.P. Singh, however, took a plea that the criteria which was adopted in the case of Executive Engineers was not the criteria adopted in the case of the Assistant Engineers and, therefore, the view expressed by the Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra Agarwal (supra) would not hold good in the instant case. On this argument, Sri I.P. Singh was required to produce the record and to indicate the criteria which was different than the aforesaid criteria or that the Screening Committee did not follow the said criteria, but the plea could not be substantiated. 9. On this argument, Sri I.P. Singh was required to produce the record and to indicate the criteria which was different than the aforesaid criteria or that the Screening Committee did not follow the said criteria, but the plea could not be substantiated. 9. That being the position, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be sustained. Further submission of Sri I.P. Singh is that even otherwise, on the basis of the adverse material, which has been indicated in the counter affidavit, the order of the compulsory retirement against the petitioner need not be interfered with, under the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. 10. In response, Sri S.K. Kalia, Senior Advocate, submitted that in similar matters of compulsory retirement, this Court has already held that the criteria for award of marks was bad in law. Sri I.P. Singh, however, could not prove otherwise. The assessment of the service record with annual entries awarded to the public servant, the appreciation and commendation letters or certificates issued to him or any other material, which may reflect his working, reputation and character in service, all are to be assessed by the Screening Committee while considering the case of compulsorily retirement. The compulsory retirement, though, is not a punishment but it certainly curtails the normal period of service to which the public servant is otherwise entitled to under the Service Rules. Retiring a public servant prematurely i.e. before he reaches the age of superannuation, may be, in technical terms and legally may not be a punishment but certainly it has its own civil consequences upon the service career of the public servant. The provision for retiring a public servant prematurely has been inserted with a view to check out the officers/employees who had lost their utility and have become deadwood. Keeping in service or allowing such officers, who are dishonest, inefficient and have lost their utility would affect the administration and functioning of the department adversely, whereas the officers, who are capable of performing their duties and are still useful for the service, are not supposed to be retired on mere titbits or on irrelevant consideration. The compulsory retirement cannot be ordered for collateral purpose nor for punishing a government servant. The compulsory retirement cannot be ordered for collateral purpose nor for punishing a government servant. Sri S.K. Kalia also tried to impress upon the Court that the service record of the petitioner does not constitute any adverse material so as to form an opinion that the petitioner has become dead wood or he is an inefficient officer so as to retire him compulsorily. He says that there was no nexus and relevance of the adverse entries for assessing the case of the petitioner. In our opinion, the assessment of the service record is to be done by the Screening Committee or the appointing authority and the Court would rarely make its own assessment. In view of the fact that we have found that the order of compulsory retirement cannot be upheld because the criteria adopted has not been found to be valid, we leave it open to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement on the basis of the service record, in accordance with law, afresh. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is allowed. The order of compulsory retirement dated 2.9.2005 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. As a consequence to the quashing of the aforesaid order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service without consequential benefits, with the aforesaid liberty. 11. No order as to costs. ————