Judgment Govind Matur, J.-By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the order dated 211.2000 whereby petitioner Shri Pukhraj Gehlot was compulsorily retired in public interest. During pendency of this petition for writ he died on 012.2005, accordingly, he was substituted by his legal representatives. The facts giving rise to present petition are as follows:- The Commissioner-cum-secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Food and Civil Supply, by an order dated 211.2000 while exercising powers under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”) compulsorily retired the petitioner in public interest. An appeal assailing validity and propriety of the order dated 211.2000 came to be rejected by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal vide its Judgment dated 18.02.2003, hence, this petition for writ is preferred. 2. The principle contention to assail validity of the order impugned is that he tribunal erred by affirming the order dated 211.2000 without appreciating that the same was passed by the appointing authority without existence of any circumstances to invoke the powers given under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996. 3. Per contra, the contention of the respondents is that the petitioner was compulsorily retired in public interest by examining his entire service record and the tribunal on basis of available material affirmed the ruder dated 211.2000. 4. Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 reads as follows:- “53. Compulsory retirement on completion of 15 years qualifying service. (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed 15 years qualifying service or has attained the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier, the appointing authority, upon having been satisfied that the concerned Government servant has on account of his indolence or doubtful integrity or incompetence to discharge official duties or inefficiency in due performance of official duties, has lost his utility, may require the concerned Government servant to retire in public interest. In case of such retirement, the Government servant shall be entitled to retiring pension.” 5. In case of such retirement, the Government servant shall be entitled to retiring pension.” 5. From reading of the provisions of Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996, it is apparent that a Government servant either on completion of 15 years of service or attaining the age of 50 years may be retired from service in public interest, if , the appointing authority is satisfied that the concerned Government servant has lost his utility on account of (1) indolence, or (2) doubtful integrity, or (3) incompetence to discharge official duties, or (4) inefficiency in due performance of the official duties. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to settled legal preposition that a Government servant can be compulsorily retired in public interest on basis of subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority but that should not be an out come of malafides, must be based on evidence and material i.e. sufficient for a reasonable person to form requisite opinion to place a Government servant under compulsory retirement. On the basis of aforesaid legal position, validity of the order impugned is require to be examined. 6. By the order dated 211.2000 the appointing authority compulsorily retired the petitioner by forming an opinion that his further retention in service is not in public interest. The tribunal vide its order dated 18.02.2003 rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner by holding that in view of the law laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das & Anr. vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr., reported in 1992 (2) SCC 299 , the order of compulsory retirement does not appear to be an out come of malafide, as such no interference is warranted with the order passed on the basis of recommendation made by a competent review committee. 7. It is pertinent to note that while holding as above the tribunal nowhere discussed the facts to those the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (Supra) was applied, hence, this Court by order dated 14.02.2007 directed the respondents to produce the record of the screening committee, Review Committee and the note of the appointing authority forming a definite opinion that retention of the petitioner in service shall not be in public interest. 8. 8. The record aforesaid is accordingly shown to the Court today, from perusal of that it reveals that the screening committee as well as the review committee after examining service record of 165 Government servants reached at the conclusion that no one deserves to be compulsorily retired. On basis of the reports given by two committees referred above, a note was prepared by the Deputy Commissioner (Headquarters), Department of Food and Supply, on 10.11.2000 and that was placed before the appointing authority for its perusal and approval. The note referred above reads as follows:- 9. The appointing authority on 211.2000 discussed cases of all 166 Government servants with the members of aforesaid two committees and decided as under:- In compliance of the decision above, the order dated 211.2000 was issued. 10. On examination of the decision dated 211.2000, no doubt remains that the appointing authority has not discussed the evidence and the material to form an opinion to retire the petitioner from service in public interest. 11. The appointing authority is always require to examine entire service record of a Government servant and then to form a definite opinion on basis of such record that the public interest demands for premature retirement of the Government servant. In the instant matter it was all the more necessary as the screening committee and review committee after examining entire service record of the petitioner opined to continue him in service. 12. It is true that it is exclusive and subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority that may result into compulsory retirement of a Government servant in public interest, but such satisfaction must be based on adequate material to provide a valid cradle for maintaining the decision for premature retirement. An appointing authority while deciding to retire a Government servant in public interest in exercising powers under Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 is under obligation to record the reasons to satisfy himself that the Government servant has lost his utility on account of his indolence, doubtful integrity, incompetence and inefficiency in discharging official duties though there is no need to convey these reasons to the Government servant. 13. In the instant matter the appointing authority has given a conclusion but has not formed any objective opinion by considering service record of the petitioner that he has lost his utility on account of indolence, doubtful integrity, incompetence and inefficiency in discharging official duties. 13. In the instant matter the appointing authority has given a conclusion but has not formed any objective opinion by considering service record of the petitioner that he has lost his utility on account of indolence, doubtful integrity, incompetence and inefficiency in discharging official duties. The decision of the appointing authority is absolutely lacking the reasons for retiring the petitioner prematurely, as such, it can be safely said that the order of compulsory retirement dated 211.2000 is based on no evidence. The unfortunate part is that the tribunal decided the appeal in most cursory manner by placing reliance upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (Supra) without examining facts of the case. As a matter of fact in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (Supra) the order passed by the appointing authority retiring the petitioners at premature stage deserves to be declared illegal as that is based on no evidence. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (Supra) held, as follows:- “34. (iii) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary-in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order.” 14. In view of whatever discussed above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The Judgment dated 18.02.2003 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal is quashed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner bearing No. 551 of 2000 is allowed. The order dated 211.2000 passed by the Commissioner-cum-secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Food and Supply, retiring petitioner Shri Pukhraj Gehlot from service is declared illegal and, therefore, the same is also quashed. Late Shri Pukhraj Gehlot shall be treated in service upto the date of his death i.e. 012.2005. The order dated 211.2000 passed by the Commissioner-cum-secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Food and Supply, retiring petitioner Shri Pukhraj Gehlot from service is declared illegal and, therefore, the same is also quashed. Late Shri Pukhraj Gehlot shall be treated in service upto the date of his death i.e. 012.2005. The legal representatives of Late Shri Pukhraj Gehlot shall be entitled for all consequential benefits including the wages for the period Shri Pukhraj Gehlot remained under Compulsory retirement and revision of death-cum-retiral benefits for which they are entitled. No order to costs.