JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of compulsory retirement from service Annex.-14 dated 06.11.2003 with the prayer that consequential directions such as reinstatement and other consequential benefits may also be granted with compensation and damages for the losses suffered by the petitioner. 2. Before filing the present writ petition against the order of compulsory retirement, earlier a writ petition was preferred by the petitioner and the said writ petition was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 569/2003 which is still pending before this Court. In the earlier writ petition, the following prayer was made : "I/a. It be declared that the petitioner stands regularised on the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) on and from the date he was so appointed. If the Court were of the view that the Court itself can not declare the services of the petitioner to be regularized, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation on the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) and on finding him fit therefor, regularise his services as such. I/b. In the alternative and without prejudice to the aforesaid prayer in the event of the Court coming to the conclusion that aforesaid prayers can not be granted respondents be directed to continue petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) as he has been working hitherto before and for this purpose order of the Registrar dated 31.5.2002 may be quashed and the respondent University be directed to continue petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) till regular selections are made and appointments are given as he was doing hither to before. I/c. The respondents be directed to take work of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) from the petitioner and not that of a ministerial in nature. I/d. The respondents be directed to pay to the petitioner all that becomes payable on his remaining on the post of Assistant Engineer as falling due from time to time." 3. In the above writ petition, notices were issued and reply was filed by the University on 08.04.2003. A prayer was also made in that writ petition by way of stay application that impugned order therein dated 31.05.2002 may be stayed. In the above writ petition, notices were issued and reply was filed by the University on 08.04.2003. A prayer was also made in that writ petition by way of stay application that impugned order therein dated 31.05.2002 may be stayed. But, when no stay order was passed by this Court in the said writ petition, then, the petitioner was required to submit his joining on the post of Technical Assistant (USIC), therefore, he had no alternative but to comply with the order dated 31.05.2002 under protest to avoid any risk involved in not doing so. In the above writ petition, it is nowhere stated in the reply by the respondents that the petitioner's services are not satisfactory or he had outlived his utility in the service of the University. The only principal dispute involved in the writ petition was that whether the petitioner is entitled to have his services regularised on the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical). The controversy involved in the said writ petition with regard to the petitioner's claim for regularisation on the post of Assistant Engineer is under adjudication and although it has nothing to do with the present controversy but the petitioner has stated in the present writ petition that in earlier writ petition it is nowhere stated by the respondent University that the petitioner's work was not found satisfactory or that he has outlived his utility in the service of the University. 4. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned action of the respondents whereby the order was passed on 06.11.2003 for compulsory retirement of the petitioner. As per the petitioner, on 04.11.2003, a letter was issued by the Dean, College of Science, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur by which the petitioner was relieved in the after-noon of 04.11.2003 to report in the office the Assistant Registrar (Degree Cell) of the University. The petitioner filed a representation to the Registrar on 05.11.2003 in which it was prayed that he may be apprised of the University Service Rules for his transfer in the Degree Cell. Further, it is requested that the petitioner may be informed in writing the details of the work which he was required to perform in the Degree Cell. The petitioner filed a representation to the Registrar on 05.11.2003 in which it was prayed that he may be apprised of the University Service Rules for his transfer in the Degree Cell. Further, it is requested that the petitioner may be informed in writing the details of the work which he was required to perform in the Degree Cell. On 05.11.2003, upon representation filed by the petitioner a communication was sent by the Registrar to the Dean, College of Science in which it was directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to work in the College itself and his services are not required in the office of the Registrar. The petitioner has placed on record Annex.-13 dated 05.11.2003 passed by the Registrar. As per the petitioner when the petitioner again joined in the Science College, suddenly, he received impugned order dated 06.11.2003 whereby the petitioner was given compulsory retirement on completion of 24 years' qualifying service. In the said order of compulsory retirement, it is specifically stated that the petitioner has lost his utility in the University service and as such further retention of the petitioner in service is not in the over-all interest of the University. Therefore, he is hereby given payment of three months' notice pay amounting to Rs. 53,823/-. 5. In the impugned order dated 06.11.2003, it is also stated that if Mr. Bhandari is aggrieved of this order he may make his representation, if any, in respect of his compulsory retirement through the Registrar within 15 days of the order. Therefore, a representation was filed by the petitioner in which it is prayed that he may be apprised of the provisions under which the order has been issued for compulsory retirement. It is stated by the petitioner that his earlier writ petition is pending with regard to regularisation on the post of Assistant Engineer and with a view to punish him for having approached the Hon'ble High Court, the order of compulsory retirement has been passed without any provisions of law. 6. The representation of the petitioner was replied vide communication dated 11.11.2003 by the Registrar of the University in which it is stated that the order dated 06.11.2003 is already a self-speaking order and the petitioner has been compulsorily retired with effect from 06.11.2003 as per rules the date on which the aforesaid order was signed. 6. The representation of the petitioner was replied vide communication dated 11.11.2003 by the Registrar of the University in which it is stated that the order dated 06.11.2003 is already a self-speaking order and the petitioner has been compulsorily retired with effect from 06.11.2003 as per rules the date on which the aforesaid order was signed. When the representation of the petitioner was rejected, then, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. In the writ petition, it is stated by the petitioner that there is no provision in the Mohan Lal Sukhadia University Act 1962 or any statute made under the said Act, any provision permitting the respondent University to compulsorily retire its employees nor there is any provision either in the initial statute or in the latter statutes. It is also contended by the petitioner that the respondent University has, of course, made service conditions for employees other than teachers and officers, as provided under the Act and made under the provisions of Statute 10(3)(C)(V) and approved by the Executive Committee vide resolution No. 3 dated 25.01.1977 which were notified by notification dated 01.03.1977. The petitioner contends in the writ petition that nowhere in these service conditions a provision for compulsory retirement has been made except by way of disciplinary proceedings as a major penalty. 7. Further, it is contended by the petitioner that Pension Regulations were framed by the University while exercising the power vested under the provisions of Statute 10(3) of the Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur vide resolution No. 19(1)/9 in the meeting of the Board of Management dated 17.08.1990. These rules are known as Mohan Lal Sukhadia University Pension Regulations 1990. As per the petitioner, in that also, it is nowhere provided for compulsory retirement being effected except by way of disciplinary proceedings . 8. The Governor of Rajasthan in exercise of powers vested in him under Article 309 of the Constitution of India promulgated the Pension Rules known as Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 and those rules were further amended in the year 1999 vide notification dated 01.12.1999. The State Government sent those amendment in rules to the respondent University to be made applicable to the employees. The State Government sent those amendment in rules to the respondent University to be made applicable to the employees. The respondent University, in turn, vide order dated 13/17.09.2001 notified that in pursuance to the resolution No.6 of the BOM meeting held on 28.08.2001 and pursuant to Government of Rajasthan notification dated 01.12.1999, the existing regulation No. 17(a) Section IV (Retiring Pension) & Pensioners Rules and Regulations have been amended. In that amendment also, it is nowhere provided that employees will be given compulsory retirement by the University; meaning thereby, it is evident from the rules that the respondent University did take notice of the notification of the Stated Government dated 01.12.1996 in which the provision for compulsory retirment was incorporated but at the time of amending University pension rules and regulations, the relevant provision for compulsory retirement was not implemented, therefore, it can safely be said that there is no provision in the University for compulsory retirement except by way of disciplinary proceedings. 9. Upon aforesaid fact, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that without any provision of compulsory retirement the petitioner has been compulsorily retired vide the impugned order dated 06.11.2003, Annex.-14 which is void ab initio. Further it is argued that the order impugned is a case of malice in law because the only reason for compulsory retirement of the petitioner seems to be that earlier for regularisation the petitioner has come to this Court for seeking relief against the University in the earlier writ petition which is pending before this Court. According to the petitioner, he has been punished by the University for having approached this Court. The strategy of the respondent University is to throw the petitioner out of service knowing it well that ultimately the order will go but the petitioner will suffer unemployment till his writ petition is decided. The petitioner is raising voice that he has been penalised for approaching this Court earlier for seeking his regularisation on the post of Assistant Engineer. According to the petitioner, in the earlier writ petition, it is nowhere stated by the respondents that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Likewise, no disciplinary action has ever been taken by the respondents, therefore, the petitioner has been penalised by way of issuing the order of compulsory retirement because he has approached this Court in earlier writ petition. 10. Likewise, no disciplinary action has ever been taken by the respondents, therefore, the petitioner has been penalised by way of issuing the order of compulsory retirement because he has approached this Court in earlier writ petition. 10. It is also vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no occasion for the respondents to pass the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner because no disciplinary action was ever taken against the petitioner nor any adverse entry or remark was communicated by the respondents to the petitioner. Likewise, in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner for regularisation on the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) there is no ground in the reply that the work of the petitioner is unsatisfactory or he has outlived or lost his utility for the University service; meaning thereby, the facts of this case itself speak that the petitioner has been penalised for the reason that he has approached this Court for redressal of his grievance for regularisation on the post of Assistant Engineer. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed in respect of the petitioner only and none else, that too, without any provision of law, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order of compulsory retirement Annex.-14 dated 06.11.2003 deserves to be quashed. Likewise, other communication dated 11.11.2003 passed upon the representation of the petitioner also deserves to be quashed. 11. Per contra, by way of filing reply it is contended by the respondent University that the contention of the petitioner with regard to non-existence of any provision of compulsory retirement, is totally baseless and has no foundation in the eye of law. The order has been passed in accordance with law and there is power left to the University to pass order of compulsory retirement in the event of unsatisfactory work and losing the utility of an employee during his service, of course, in accordance with rules. 12. The respondents in their reply submitted that the University was established under the Act known as Mohan Lal Sukhadia University Act, 1962. In the Act, there is a provision for framing the statutes. In the first statute there is a provision under para 9 whereby powers and duties of the Board are prescribed. 12. The respondents in their reply submitted that the University was established under the Act known as Mohan Lal Sukhadia University Act, 1962. In the Act, there is a provision for framing the statutes. In the first statute there is a provision under para 9 whereby powers and duties of the Board are prescribed. Under para 10, there is provision of executive committee of the Board, according to which, the Executive Committee of the Board is having powers and duties under sub-para (3) of para 10 and according to para 10(3)(v), there is power left with the Executive Committee to frame service conditions of the employees of the University on the recommendation of the council. Therefore, in exercise of powers vested under the provisions of Statute 10(3) of the Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur the Board of Management vide resolution dated 07.08.1991 framed the regulations regarding grant of pension to the employees of the University. In the said regulation, there is regulation 50 which refers to the applicability of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Learned counsel for the respondents while inviting attention towards Regulation 50 submits that as per Regulation 50 it is specifically provided that where the University Statutes, Ordinance, Rules and decisions are silent, the Rules and decisions of the Government of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Service Rules shall be referred to; meaning thereby, there is provision in the University Pension Regulations under which the University can take shelter of the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Therefore, the decision was taken for compulsory retirement of the petitioner because he has lost his utility for the University service. Further, it is submitted that vide order dated 13.10.2003 the Chancellor of the University constituted a Committee for assessment of the utility of the services of the petitioner in which three members were included viz., (1) Prof. P.S. Ranawat, (2) Mr. K.B. Vajpayee, Retd. R.A.S. And (3) Mr. V.R. Garg, Retd. R.A.S. The said committee was constituted to assess the service record of the petitioner and the said committee gave its conclusion after assessment of the petitioner's service record on 04.11.2003 in which the committee opined that the services of the petitioner are of no use for the University and that his nonperforming and defined presence is detrimental to the University and in view of the AG audit objections, his continuation in the services is certainly a wasteful expenditure. Upon the said finding given by the Committee, the Vice Chancellor of the University has passed the order for compulsory retirement of the petitioner which is in consonance with the provisions of law which cannot be questioned by the petitioner because he has lost his utility in the University service. Therefore, his further retention in the service was not found to be in the interest of the University. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be permitted to say that without any provisions of law he has been compulsorily retired. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed because as per the finding of the Committee so constituted by the Vice Chancellor it is found that the petitioner's work is not satisfactory. It is, therefore, prayed on behalf of the respondents that this writ petition may be dismissed. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to various judgments of this High Court regarding justification of compulsory retirement which are as follows : i. 2005 (2) WLC (Raj.) 392 ii. 2003 (2) WLC (Raj.) 106 iii. 2002 (3) WLC 263 iv. 2001 (1) WLC (Raj.) 1. 14. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties and perused the entire record of the writ petition. 15. In this writ petition, certain facts are undisputed facts which are as follows : (1) Prior to filing of this writ petition, an earlier writ petition was filed by the petitioner for regularisation on the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 569/2003 which is pending. (2) It is admitted position of the case that no disciplinary action was ever taken against the petitioner prior to passing order of compulsory retirement. The order of compulsory retirement is outcome of assessment of the petitioner's work by the Committee so constituted by the Vice Chancellor for petitioner only. (3) Undisputedly, the respondent University is established under the Act known as Mohan Lal Sukhadia University Act 1962 in which there is a provision for framing statutes under Section 35. According to Section 35(1), statutes with regard to matters set out in clauses (A) to (M) of Section 35 were made by the State Government. Further there is power left with the Board to frame new or additional statutes under Section 35(2). Admittedly, the first statute was framed by the State Government in accordance with Section 35(1). 16. According to Section 35(1), statutes with regard to matters set out in clauses (A) to (M) of Section 35 were made by the State Government. Further there is power left with the Board to frame new or additional statutes under Section 35(2). Admittedly, the first statute was framed by the State Government in accordance with Section 35(1). 16. I have perused the first statute framed by the State Government. According to Statute 10(3)(v), there is power left with the Executive Committee of the Board to frame service conditions of the employees of the University on the recommendation of the Council of Deans. Statute 10(3)(v) runs as under: "to frame service conditions of employees of the University on the recommendation of the Council of Deans." 17. I have also perused the Pension Regulations so framed while exercising power vested under the provisions of Statute 10(3) of the Mohan Lal Sukhadia University Act. According to the Pension Regulations, Regulation 50 refers to the applicability of the Rajasthan Service Rules in which it is specifically provided that where the rules and ordinances, statutes or decisions of the University are silent, then, the Rules and decisions of the Government of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Service Rules shall be referred to; meaning thereby, the contention of the respondent University has force that in the event of absence of any provision in the University Statute, Ordinance, Rules or Regulations, the rules framed under the Rajasthan Service Rules can be made applicable to the employees of the University, therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner's contention with regard to non-existence of the provisions for compulsory retirement is baseless and has no foundation in the eye of law. The contention of the petitioner is that after amendment in the year 1999 when the State Government sent the amendment to the university for incorporating the same the University has not chosen to incorporate the rule for compulsory retirement. I am completely in disagreement with the contention raised by the petitioner that the provision of compulsory retirement was not incorporated in the regulation although it was sent by the State Government to the University, therefore, there is no provision of compulsory retirement in existence in the University. The University accepted the amendment for those provisions which were in existence. I am completely in disagreement with the contention raised by the petitioner that the provision of compulsory retirement was not incorporated in the regulation although it was sent by the State Government to the University, therefore, there is no provision of compulsory retirement in existence in the University. The University accepted the amendment for those provisions which were in existence. Therefore, if there was no express provision in existence in the University Regulations for compulsory retirement, then, there is no question of accepting the said communication of amendment for the provision which is not expressly provided in the Regulations. In my opinion, the Regulations itself speak that in the absence of any provision therein, the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules will be referred to. Then, obviously there is power left to the University to take recourse to the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules as per the regulations framed in the year 1999. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is power left to the University to take decision for compulsory retirement in accordance with Rule 53 of the Pension Rules framed under the Rajasthan Service Rules. Therefore, the first ground taken by the petitioner is not sustainable with regard to non-existence of any provision of law for compulsory retirement in the University. 18. In this matter, decision of the University for passing of the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner deserves to be examined by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, earlier a writ petition was preferred by the petitioner for regularisation on the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical). In that writ petition, the respondents are contesting and reply has already been filed. In that reply it is nowhere stated by the respondents that the petitioner has lost his utility for the University service and his work is unsatisfactory; meaning thereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioner for seeking remedy for regularisation on the post of Assistant Engineer is still under adjudication before this Court. When this fact is correct, then, now it is to be seen why the decision of compulsory retirement has been taken by the University. When this fact is correct, then, now it is to be seen why the decision of compulsory retirement has been taken by the University. The whole reply of the respondent speaks that the petitioner has lost his utility for the University service which is based upon the recommendation made by the Committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor on 13.10.2003 for assessing the service record of the petitioner for the purpose of his continuance in the service of the University. 19. First of all, why such decision has been taken by the Vice Chancellor in respect of an individual knowingly well that his claim for regularisation on the post of Assistant Engineer is under adjudication before this Court. Secondly, what was the necessity to constitute a Committee of 3 members out of which two retired RAS officers were included in the said Committee for assessing the service record of the petitioner. The order of the University dated 13.10.2003 reads as under : "No. F6(145)/GrII/Estt/2003/6029-32 dated 13.10.2003 (Vernacular matter omitted Ed.) The above order clearly speaks that the petitioner never worked under the control of two retired RAS officers nor the two retired members of the Committee were related to the University service; meaning thereby, the constitution of this Committee itself is questionable because the Registrar has issued order as per orders of the Vice Chancellor for reviewing the utility of the petitioner's services. Whey so, it is best known to the respondents. 20. It is also obvious that at the time of assessing the petitioner's record by the 3 members of the Committee there was no information to the petitioner for constitution of such Committee. The above action was taken only against the petitioner, that too, at the back of the petitioner. The respondents have placed on record Annex.-R/4, report of the said Committee. In the operative part of the report, the following recommendation was made : "The above stated summary amply proves that throughout the 23 years service period of Mr. Hemant Bhandari there have been numerous and persistent complaints against him by his officers-in-charge and he failed to perform satisfactorily whatever duty was assigned to him. There is also a recorded complaint against Mr. Bhandari by the Secretary Sahayak Karmachary Sangh (University Supporting Staff Union), which desired action against him. Hemant Bhandari there have been numerous and persistent complaints against him by his officers-in-charge and he failed to perform satisfactorily whatever duty was assigned to him. There is also a recorded complaint against Mr. Bhandari by the Secretary Sahayak Karmachary Sangh (University Supporting Staff Union), which desired action against him. It is surprising that despite repeated acts of insubordination and indiscipline, no serious disciplinary action was taken against him all these years. As per RSR rules 244(2) an unproductive employee can be retired after 20 years of service. Mr. Bhandari has put in 23 years unsatisfactory and unproductive service in the University. In view of the above, the committee is of the considered opinion that the services of Mr. Hemant Bhandari, TA Mechanical, are of no use to the University and that his non-performing and defined presence is detrimental to the discipline in the University. In view of the AG audit objections, his continuation in the services is certainly a wasteful expenditure." 21. Upon perusal of the above recommendation, it is obvious that the Committee was of the opinion that no serious disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner in the entire service tenure of the petitioner; meaning thereby, in the service record there is no adversity against the petitioner. It is observed in the report by the Committee in the finding that as per RSR Rules 244(2) an unproductive employee can be retired after 20 years of service. Mr. Bhandari has put in 23 years unsatisfactory and unproductive service in the University. Surprisingly enough, the Committee which has given its report on 04.11.2003 has not even perused the relevant provisions of law which is evident from the fact that on 04.11.2003 Rule 244 (2) of the RSR was not in existence. Obviously, in the Committee 2 retired RAS officers were included and they were not having any knowledge that in the year 1996 the provisions of the RSR from Rule 167 onwards were deleted and new rules known as Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 were framed and Rule 53 was incorporated in the rules by which it was provided that employee can be given compulsory retirement on account of indolence or doubtful integrity or incompetence to discharge official duties or, has lost his utility, such person can be given compulsory retirement in public interest. But, upon perusal of the recommendation of the Committee it is obvious that the members of the committee have not even discussed the provisions of the rules and concluded the enquiry observing the rules which were not even in existence. 22. Secondly, it is nowhere stated by the respondents in the reply that under which provision or decision of the rules the retired RAS officers came to be nominated to the Committee as its members for assessing service record of the employee of the University. That too, only after the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing writ petition seeking regularisation on the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) and his writ petition is still pending before this Court. All these facts clearly speak that either to take revenge or to malign and harass the petitioner the decision has been taken by the University and the petitioner has been given compulsory retirement on the recommendation of members of the Committee who were not even officers of the University; meaning thereby that somehow the respondents wanted to throw the petitioner out of job. Upon perusal of the report of the Committee shows that there is no adverse order of the Disciplinary Authority on record nor any adverse remarks in the ACRs of the petitioner are in existence in his service record. If that is so, then, how such finding could be arrived at by the committee without reference to any adverse ACR that the petitioner has lost his utility for the University service. As per observation of the Committee in the concluding part of the report, it is surprising that a presumption has been drawn by those members of the Committee under whom the petitioner did no work for a single day that despite repeated acts of insubordination no action was taken against him in all these years. However, in the last para, the Committee observed that the Committee is of the opinion that the petitioner's services are of no use to the University. 23. It may be observed that the aforesaid finding of the Committee has been made during pendency of the writ petition filed by the petitioner for his claim for regularisation on the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) and in the reply filed in that writ petition it is nowhere stated that the petitioner's services are unsatisfactory or he has lost his utility for the University. Therefore, apparently an attempt has been made by the respondents to over-reach the decision which is yet to be delivered by this Court in the writ petition filed for the claim of regularisation on the post of Assistant Engineer. In this view of the matter, the conduct of the respondent University in appointing the Committee for assessment of the petitioner's case for compulsory retirement before adjudication of the earlier writ petition for regularisation does not appear bonafide to substantiate the action of the University. 24. I am in full agreement with the counsel for the petitioner that action of compulsory retirement against the petitioner is outcome of the earlier writ petition in which the petitioner has prayed for regularisation on the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical). In my opinion, if the petitioner lost his utility then why the same was not brought to the notice of this Court in the earlier writ petition which is still pending. During the pendency of the earlier writ petition aforesaid Committee has been constituted by appointing two retired RAS officers out of three members without any rule itself speaks that somehow the respondents want to create evidence to deny the claim of regularisation and continuance in service. Therefore, the action of the University for giving compulsory retirement to the petitioner on the basis of the so called recommendation made by the Committee is a weapon which is created by the University not only to deny the petitioner the claim of regularisation on the post of Assistant Engineer but to deny the continuance in employment. There is no dispute with regard to right of employee to take decision for compulsory retirement of the employee. So also, the appointing authority has ample powers to assess the entire service record but the power shall not be exercised in an arbitrary manner. Admittedly, in the service record there is nothing adverse against the petitioner except unfounded presumption of the Committee which is even obvious from the finding of the Committee also, therefore, if the appointing authority itself has not chosen to take any action against the petitioner for any misconduct, then how, on the basis of the presumption drawn by the Committee during the pendency of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner for regularization, such action could be taken for compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. There is no doubt that appointing authority or competent authority of the University is having power to assess the service record of the petitioner for the purpose of compulsory retirement but in all his service tenure the appointing authority or competent authority did not take any action against the petitioner and, now, when there is no ground left with the University to agitate before this Court against the claim of the petitioner for regularisation then to generate evidence and for the purpose of denial of any relief purposefully the aforesaid committee was constituted. In my opinion, upon such recommendation which is based on presumption cannot be treated a valid ground for taking action for compulsory retirement. 25. Admittedly, the competent authority and appointing authority did not choose to take any disciplinary action against the petitioner nor any adverse entry was made in his service record in whole service tenure, then, how merely on the basis of so called presumption such finding can be arrived at. In that view of the matter the whole constitution of the committee and its recommendation itself is illegal and without any provision of law. The decision for constitution of the committee seems to be taken to shift the responsibility upon the committee by the appointing authority which is not permissible under the law. 26. With regard to judgment cited by the respondents there is no dispute that employer can assess the service record and order for compulsory retirement can be passed in the event of unsatisfactory work and employee becoming dead wood; but, in this case, there is no evidence with regard to adverse service record or any misconduct for which compulsory retirement was to be ordered. The order of compulsory retirement has been passed without application of mind and to harass the petitioner. 27. Therefore, in my opinion, the whole basis of taking action against the petitioner for compulsory retirement is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. More so, the University has taken decision to penalise the low-paid employee who approached this Court for redressal of his grievance by way of filing writ petition which is yet to be decided. If such type of action is permitted by this Court, then, certainly the citizens will be deprived of the right to agitate for remedies available under the law. 28. If such type of action is permitted by this Court, then, certainly the citizens will be deprived of the right to agitate for remedies available under the law. 28. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the action of the respondents for giving compulsory retirement to the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal and has not foundation to stand in the eye of law. Consequently, the order Annex.-14 dated 06.11.2003 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 29. For the reasons aforementioned, this writ petition is allowed. Order impugned Annex.-14 dated 06.11.2003 is quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.There shall however be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. *******