1. All these writ petitions being directed against identically similar Govt. orders emanating from the same administrative process and resulting in premature/compulsory retirement orders against writ petitioners have been clubbed and heard together and are accordingly bunched up for disposal under this common judgment. 2. To gather the circumstantial backdrop of these petitions, the following para(s) may be borrowed from the judgment passed by this bench in a connected case (SWP 1965/03) on 27.12.2005: - "...With declared purpose of weeding out dead wood from public administration to improve efficiency, the Government vide circular No. 7-GAD of 2004 dated 7-5-2004, urged upon all Heads of Departments to start process of periodical review of the performance of officers/officials under their control and record appropriate remarks in their APRs. By another circular No. 5-GAD of 2003 dated 29-1-2003; all concerned were impressed upon to apprise General Administration Department about the follow up action taken. In continuation vide order No. 306-GAD of 2003 dated 5-3-2003, Government accorded sanction to constitution of a Committee comprising of Financial Commissioner Home, Pr. Secretary GAD and Commissioner/ Secretary Law Department, plus the Secretary of concerned Administrative Department as co-opted member cases of whose department would be under consideration for weeding of undesirable officers / officials in terms of Article 226(2) and (3) of the J&K CSR. The committee was charged with the duty of recommending action against such officers to be processed further by concerned Administrative Department for obtaining approval of cabinet or competent authority. Under a follow up order being No. DAR(Adm) 71/2003-V dated 1-4-2003, all concerned were required to send requisite information about officers/officials under their control in prescribed proforma, with instructions to refer cases of those who have become ineffective or have out-lived their utility along with their ACRs, and a general assessment about their reputation except the cases involving dereliction of duties liable to be dealt with under normal statutory procedure within a fixed time frame i.e. in cases of heads of department by or before 9-4-2003, Middle level officers by or before 23-4-2003 and other gazetted officers by or before 15-5-2003. The proforma prescribed for furnishing information as aforesaid inter-alia required APRs for five preceding years i.e. 1997-1998 to 2001-2002 along with adverse remarks, if any, and details of the works / contracts allotted by the officer those had become subject of any departmental enquiry or investigation by Vigilance department or invited adverse comment of audit and inspection department, along with a brief report by concerned Administrative Secretary as to whether the concerned employee had out lived his utility etc. By another order being order No. 713-GAD of 2003 dated 10-6-2003 the order No. 306-GAD of 2003 above mentioned was partially modified to the extent of re-constituting the committee to comprise of the Chief Secretary, Financial Commissioner (Finance), and Commissioner Secretary, Law department, while other ingredients of the aforesaid order No. 306 were kept intact. The committee first met on 2-7-2003 and formulated the guidelines to be adopted for undertaking the assigned job as follows:- "Present: 1. Chief Secretary... In chair. 2. Financial Commissioner (Finance)... Member. 3. Commissioner/Secretary, Law Dept.... Member. The committee took note of the principles which have crystallized, through various judgments of the Honble Courts, on the issue of compulsory retirements. These include the following:- a) Order of compulsory retirement is not regarded as a punishment under Article 311 of the Constitution of India; b) An employee who has outlived his utility can be compulsorily retired in public interest; c) If the general reputation of the officer/official is not good, he can be compulsorily retired in public interest. 1). The Committee held that cases (i) where there is evidence that a government employee is responsible for any defalcation of government money, (ii) where prosecution has been launched on the basis of investigation conducted by the Vigilance Organization or the Crime branch and charges have been framed by the court or (iii) in which a government employee is, in an investigation, found to have committed moral turpitude shall fall under the category ) of para 1 above and liable for being considered in terms of Article 226(3) of the J&K CSRs. 2). Similarly, where any government employee has failed to achieve the set targets consistently for three yeas, without any specific justifiable reason, he shall be considered to have outlived his utility in government service. 2). Similarly, where any government employee has failed to achieve the set targets consistently for three yeas, without any specific justifiable reason, he shall be considered to have outlived his utility in government service. Likewise where the pass percentage of students in any subject taught by any member of the teaching staff is below average consistently for three or more years, he shall also be considered to have outlived his utility in government service. Where a government employee has failed to achieve targets consistently for two years or where the pass percentage in any subject taught by a member of the teaching staff is below average consistently for two years, the performance of such employees shall be watched in the third year to decide whether their cases be considered for premature retirement. Such employees shall be identified and notified by each Head of the Department and their names kept in a list to be called as the "agreed list" meaning thereby that such government employees are under watch. 3) ..... 4) After setting the above broad principles, following decisions were taken:- a) the Vigilance Commissioner and the I.G.Crime and Railways shall provide to the committee, in its next meeting, lists of all in-service government employees against whom prosecution has been launched in the court of law either under the Prevention of Corruption Act or for any moral turpitude. Other details like, the post held, the date of birth, and the date of entry into Government service of each such government employee as well as the status of the prosecution proceedings shall also be provided. b) Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Principal Secretary, FDD, Commissioner/Secretary Public Works Department, Director Consumer Affairs Kashmir and Jammu, Director Funds and Director Accounts and Treasuries, shall also provide to the committee, in its next meeting lists of all such employees under their administrative control who have been found to have defalcated government money / property. Full details, namely the posts held by such employees, date of birth, and date of entry into the Government service shall also be provided in each case. c) The next meeting of the Committee shall be held on 14th July 2003 at 4 PM where the above officers shall also attend the meeting with all details mentioned above. 5. Full details, namely the posts held by such employees, date of birth, and date of entry into the Government service shall also be provided in each case. c) The next meeting of the Committee shall be held on 14th July 2003 at 4 PM where the above officers shall also attend the meeting with all details mentioned above. 5. The General Administration Department shall convey the decisions as reflected in para 4 to all concerned so that they attend the meeting on 14 July, 2003 with all relevant details." ".... (a) Next meeting of the committee appears to have been held on 14-7-2003 with Principal Secretary to Government, Planning and Development Department also a member by then which was attended by IGP Crime and Railways, Director Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution Srinagar, Director Accounts and Treasuries and DIG Vigilance also. In that meeting, the IGP Crime is stated to have reported about cases of officers/officials against whom criminal charges had been framed by Special Judge, Anticorruption and who was accordingly asked to give details of cases including those pertaining to commission of forgery, embezzlement or moral turpitude; Director Accounts and Treasuries is stated to have informed that about 60 officers were involved in embezzlement of money and defalcation etc. who was accordingly asked to provide details along with amount so defalcated etc. At the same time, Director Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution, Srinagar is reported to have stated that more than two crore rupees had been embezzled by various officers of the department by way of shortages etc. whereupon he was asked to give a list of officials habitually indulging in embezzlement of Government money etc..." 3. In its meeting of 8.9.04, attended by the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretaries of Agriculture production department and GAD, Secretary Law, and CMs Pr. Secretary the committee considered the "proposals as finalized by the departments" and "on basis of inputs" given by departments and "information about their general reputation gathered from a cross section of people" and recommended premature retire of following petitioners for what was found regarding each one of them as per records furnsiehd:- "i) Wali Mohd Bhat: He has been placed under suspension first on 6.8.92 for committing financial irregularities in Block Kupwara; on 20.07.03 for removing sarpanche of Panchayat Batapur Kupwara, without following rules and for recovery bribe of Rs. 24100/- and on26.04.04 for misappropriation of special innovative program funds in block Langet in 3/02. He has misused his powers and that he had collected money from I.A.Y beneficiaries. The reputation of officer is very bad and his retention in public interest is not warranted. ii) Wali Mohd Mir: Preliminary enquiry conducted by Director land records and DC Budgam has held the official alongwith with some others responsible for involvement in land scam involving hundreds of kanals of state/kahcharai land valuing crores of rupees as they in close connivance with each other have illegally transferred for their own ulterior motives the said land causing a heavy loss to the State. The officials were consequently placed under suspension and a full dress enquiry was conducted by Mr. Ab. Majid Khandey then Addl. D.C Pulwama who has in his enquiry report censured all these officials by recommending punishment pending determination of criminal liability by the crime branch. This land scam has created uproar in public and media and was also raised many occasions in state legislative. The land scam of this magnitude has surfaced in valley for the first time in the history of revenue department and the public at large has viewed it very seriously. All these officials have otherwise bad reputation as public servants also. iii) Gh. Mohd Shiekh: During the summer session of the state legislature Sh. Mohd that officers of rural engineering wing in block Shopian were involved in large scale corruption and had demanded urgent enquiry in the matter. The Govt appointed Director School Education Kashmir as the enquiry officer to enquire into these allegations. The enquiry officer submitted its report to the govt and indicted the following officers/officials in his report. 1........ 2. Sh. Gh. Mohd Sheikh AEE. 3 to 7... while the vigilance organization has separately been advised to register a case against the aforesaid officers/officials the committee considered the cases of these officers in terms of Art. 226(2) of J&K CSR. On the basis of the information provided by Director rural development Kashmir and DC Pulwama to GAD it was found that out of delinquent offices Sh. Gh. Mohd. Sheikh has rendered more than 22 years of service. The committee in light of the report of enquiry officer recommended that the officer may be retired prematurely. iv) Avaz ud din BDO: As per inputs provide by Addl. DG, CIC Sh. Gh. Mohd. Sheikh has rendered more than 22 years of service. The committee in light of the report of enquiry officer recommended that the officer may be retired prematurely. iv) Avaz ud din BDO: As per inputs provide by Addl. DG, CIC Sh. Ayaz ud din during his posting as BDO trehgam indulged in corrupt practices by taking illegal gratification from contractors against work orders. Some of these have been as under; I. Construction of bathrooms in Mohalla Tunzen..... .BDO received illegal gratification of Rs.20000/- from the contractor. II. Construction of panchayat ghar at Alchizab..... .The BDO received Rs.19000/- as illegal gratification from the contractor. III. Construction of RCC culverts at Hanger.....BDO received Rs.1200/- as illegal gratification from the contractor. IV. Construction of crossing at Zirhama.....contractor paid Rs.25000/- to BDO as illegal gratification. V. The BDO received Rs.12000/- as illegal gratification from contractor ......for construction of lavatory at Gujerpath. Secretary rural development department informed the committee that as ascertained from cross section of people the reputation of the officer is very bad and on that basis Govt passed their compulsory/premature retirement orders according to the following format: "Government order No.l269-GAD of 2001 Dated: 20. 09. 2004 Whereas the Government is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, the Government hereby gives notice to Shri Wali Mohd Bhat, IC DPO, Rural Development Department, that he having already attained 48 years of age, shall retire from service with effect from the forenoon of 21st September, 2004. He is allowed three months pay and allowance in lieu of three months notice. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Sd:- Additional Secretary to Govt. General Administration deptt." (v) Sh. Bir Singh Patwari: During acquisition proceedings of 1149 kanals of land in Rangreth and Voura he made false entries in favour of persons not entitled to compensation causing loss of seventy lac rupees to exchequer otherside also he was instrumental in having wrong mutations attested and subjected to enquiry he instituted a writ petition in High Court that he lost. Premature retirement of Headmasters/Headmistresses/Masters; 4. The Govt. has taken a number of measures to improve working conditions of the teachers including payment of Higher salary for comparatively lesser hours of duty as compared to other Govt. officials. Premature retirement of Headmasters/Headmistresses/Masters; 4. The Govt. has taken a number of measures to improve working conditions of the teachers including payment of Higher salary for comparatively lesser hours of duty as compared to other Govt. officials. The education department has found that despite better working conditions many teachers and supervisory staff are non performers and have out lived their utility in Govt. service. They have failed to utilize the services of teachers under their control for achieving better academic results in their schools and that they lack leadership qualities which has adversely effected the academic career of students. The results of the secondary school examination have recently been declared by the Board of School Education in respect of the candidates of Kashmir division. The education department after analyzing these results have found that results of many schools was zero and results of some of the schools were far from satisfactory on the basis of the evaluation of results of the secondary school examination of Kashmir Division for the last three years the education department has recommended following Headmasters/Headmistresses/Masters for premature retirement:- Name Posting Results 2004 2003 2002 1...... 2. Mrs. Zareena Jan Headmistress BHS Amdakadal Srinagar Zero 43% 5% 3. Mrs. Zamrooda Jan Headmistress HS, Sholipor Budgam BHS Natipora 21% Zero Zero 4. Mrs. Hafeeza Parveen Headmistress GHS Kandabal Zero 12% 14% 5. Mrs. Saleema Zarger Headmistress HS Failchil Budgam 25% Zero Zero 6. Master Hafiz BHS Behipora Kupwara Zero Attached Zero 7. Mohd. Rafique Acctt. Asst. Zero 6% 3% 8. Ab. Ali Dar GHS Baramulla 25% Zero Zero The committee considered proposal of the Education Department and also checked position about the number of students who had taken the matric examination during the past three years. Perusal of the results of these schools revealed that there has been no improvement in the results declared by the board during the last three years. The concerned teachers are playing with the future of the students and have not been able to exercise required control and improve the teaching conditions of these teachers in the education department is neither warranted nor in the overall public interest. The committee recommended premature retirement of Headmasters/Headmistresses/ Masters from S. No. 2 to 8 for the reasons given above...... The concerned teachers are playing with the future of the students and have not been able to exercise required control and improve the teaching conditions of these teachers in the education department is neither warranted nor in the overall public interest. The committee recommended premature retirement of Headmasters/Headmistresses/ Masters from S. No. 2 to 8 for the reasons given above...... The Committee further recommended that the premature retirement orders of above employees of the education department should be issued separately to send a message to all such teachers and headmasters who are non performers. On that basis the Govt. ordered the compulsory/premature retirement of these petitions according to the following format. "Government order No.......... Dated: ................. Whereas the Government is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Art. 226(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, the Government hereby gives notice to ..................that she having already attained 48 years of age, shall retire from service with effect from forenoon of 27th of April, 2005. She is allowed three months pay and allowances in lies of the three months notice. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Sd:- Principal Secretary to Govt. General Administration Deptt." 5. Aggrieved by aforesaid orders the petitioners have instituted these writ petitions on almost common grounds that their retirement as aforesaid was ordered without proper application of mind and on extra administrative/political considerations; even while no public interest was involved. They have also alleged that their service record as a whole was not taken into consideration as should have been done and on the contrary only selected portions there from reflecting upon them adversely were highlighted which renders the whole process unreasonable. Some individual grounds also have been taken which would be referred to later. However, the replies field by respondent state are identical almost in a format with slight variations in some cases which too would be noticed at the appropriate places. Some individual grounds also have been taken which would be referred to later. However, the replies field by respondent state are identical almost in a format with slight variations in some cases which too would be noticed at the appropriate places. During course of submissions petitioners counsel while reiterating contents of their respective petitions have submitted that compulsory retirement of petitioners could only be ordered in public interest, for which purpose the Government had to have sufficient materials before it to hold that they had become dead wood or were otherwise liable to forcible retirement, and only thereafter they could pass the orders after a fair, transparent and reasonable exercise in assessing their service record, according to which they were not liable to premature retirement and all impugned orders had been passed on irrelevant and extraneous considerations which amounts to clear punishments inflicted upon them in clear violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It has further been submitted that the concerned screening committee picked up these cases at random without following any procedure or mode, so much so that some of the officers who were previously indicted or had suffered adverse entries in service records were spared and petitioners only were made scapegoats to gain publicity, regarding eradication of corruption etc., even while the impugned orders never disclosed as to what was the public interest that demanded their forcible retirement. 6. In rebuttal learned Addl. Advocate General has contended that the petitions were not maintainable as neither any of the fundamental or constitutional rights of petitioners had been violated nor were the impugned orders punitive in any manner. He has also contended that for weeding out un-desirable elements from pubic administration a committee was constituted vide order no. 713-GAD 2003 dated 10.06.2003 which scrutinized all cases referred by concerned department for premature retirements including those of petitioners and after due deliberations recommended compulsory retirement of many officers including petitioners, against whom the impugned orders of retirement were passed on basis of materials existing against them and after proper application of mind and satisfaction regarding their un-usefulness in the service. During course of submissions learned appearing counsel have extensively quoted from reported cases which if necessary would be discussed in due course. 7. I have heard learned counsel, gone through the records and considered the matter. During course of submissions learned appearing counsel have extensively quoted from reported cases which if necessary would be discussed in due course. 7. I have heard learned counsel, gone through the records and considered the matter. Before anything else, it would be appropriate to mention that petitioners complain of having been prematurely retired in public interest under powers vested in the Government under Article 226(2)(3) of the CSR, cannot, as per judicially laid down law, claim to have suffered any punishment or stigma, and as such cant project infringement of principles of natural justice, if any, as a ground to assail the impugned orders, as they are not attracted, in the manner they would hi case of a regular enquiry, in view whereof it becomes necessary to notice the contours of the power of judicial review by courts in such matters. Without referring to the long line of judgments on the subject, it would be enough to reflect the law laid down, in a condensed form, as evolved from precedent to precedent, and the principles / guidelines derived there from in "Baikuntha Nath Das V. Chief District Medical Officer", reported as (1992) 2 SCC 299, wherein after taking detailed note of declared law the Honble Supreme Court, among other things, laid down as follows:- "The following principles emerge from the above discussion: i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehavior. ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government. 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. iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter - of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records -character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority. v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it un-communicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference." 8. Accordingly, it follows, that compulsory retirement, as in these cases, is a well accepted mode of weeding out inefficient and dis-honest employees from employment, and taken in that sense, it appears to be almost a condition of service rather than a penalty, as the person compulsorily retired does not lose benefits he has already earned, even though deprived of some more salary that he might have earned otherwise. Obviously therefore, the employer can require him to retire on completing the prescribed period, in public interest, and he can not make a grievance out of it, except on the grounds of mala fide or lack of evidence / supporting material, and arbitrariness, in the sense that on available materials, no reasonable person, thinking reasonably would ordinarily form an opinion favouring compulsory retirement of the concerned employee. On that touch stone alone are these cases required to be assessed and accordingly I would take up the cases in hand one by one. 9. In order to appreciate them in their fullness it would be appropriate to take each of the cases separately, in light of relevant pleadings and materials on record. a) Wali Mohmmad Bhat. As already seen this officer has suffered three suspensions from 1992 to 2004, and has reportedly been prematurely retired due to that coupled with alleged misuse of power and bad reputation. According to unrebutted service ;profile after his initial appointment as Agriculture Assistant way in 6/1977, he was posted as Assistant Project Officer in 11/1982 and promoted as District Panchayat Officer in 91 2000. According to unrebutted service ;profile after his initial appointment as Agriculture Assistant way in 6/1977, he was posted as Assistant Project Officer in 11/1982 and promoted as District Panchayat Officer in 91 2000. Under order No. 156-RD of 2004 dated: 19.7.2004 he was reinstated after suspension ordered in 2003 and posted as District Panchayat Officer, Kargil where after he was forcibly retired vide impugned order No. 1269-GAD of 2004 dated: 20.9.2004. As per copies of APRs furnished by petitioner, the same for the year 1997-1998 recorded as "very good" in two "excellent" in ten, and "outstanding" in two out of fourteen items set forth for assessment by the superior authority. For 1998-99 and 1999-2000 he has earned "Good" and "very good" for different items while in 2000-2001 he has again jumped over to "excellent". APRs if recorded thereafter have not been furnished by either side particularly respondents and petitioners counsel has maintained that they were never written. Alongwith his rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has also furnished the photocopy of letter No. CV-FIR-30/200l-K-6486-87 dated: 1.6.2005, purporting to have been written by Vigilance Commissioners office to Commissioner/Secretary Rural Development Department according to which at end of investigation in the FIR which included many allegations, the department was advised to initiate departmental inquiry against the officer alongwith another official; which means that a criminal investigation in the case did not yield anything. In that background, the petitioner besides the general grounds taken in all petitions mentioned hereinabove projects the additional challenge that he had a good service record and impugned action against him had been taken on political considerations at behest of the local MLA. No records adverse to petitioner, whatsoever have been furnished by respondents nor has anything been pleaded to project any. (b) Wali Mohd Mir, NT: According to records furnished as already noticed this office along with some others is alleged to have been involved in some land scam involving loss of crores to the Govt; while posted as a revenue official in Budgam district, which has been challenged by him. Claiming to have had a good service record the petitioner pleads that after his initial appointment as "Patwari" in 1969, he was promoted as "Girdawar" in 1990 after receiving the requisite training; and earned appreciation for his work and conduct. Claiming to have had a good service record the petitioner pleads that after his initial appointment as "Patwari" in 1969, he was promoted as "Girdawar" in 1990 after receiving the requisite training; and earned appreciation for his work and conduct. After qualifying the departmental exams he was promoted as Naib Tehsildar(NT) in 9/97 and worked as such till 6/2001, when he was suspended alongwith many other revenue officials for alleged alterations in revenue records of village "Nambal Narkara" of Budgam by recording name those in possession thereof against survey Nos. 168, 33,634, which was his duty as "Patwari" that he then was which was termed as a land scam, the alleged basis of his compulsory retirement. Challenging the same he has pleaded that after the alleged scam and his reply to the charges framed against him thereupon by concerned enquiry officer he was promoted as "Girdawar" whereafter the enquiry ended on a censure and fine of Rs. 1000/- against him, after he showed in detail that while making the entries in records he had acted in strict accordance with law and standing orders. In 2002 he was reinstated and posted as Naib Tehsildar settlement chadura, whereafter another charge sheet despite conclusion of earlier enquiry was issued to him to which he duly replied but pending conclusion of that enquiry he was retired under the impugned order; which in addition to common grounds mentioned above he challenges on the ground that it was bad as having been passed to substitute the incomplete enquiry and hence a colorable exercise of power. In their reply the respondents projected their version regarding this part of the petition. However no records whatever have been submitted to attributable any other adverse circumstance to the petitioner, nor has his plea that all through his career he earned good APRs been specifically rebutted or copies of his APRs admittedly in possession of respondents been furnished. (c) Gh. Mohd Sheikh AEE: As revealed by relevant minutes of the appointed Committees meeting this officer was prematurely retired after he was indicted by the enquiry officer appointed after allegations of corruption were made against him and other officers by the local MLA. Giving his service profile he has stated that after appointment as Jr. Engineer in 1982, he was promoted as AEE in 1993, and throughout earned appreciation of his superiors. Giving his service profile he has stated that after appointment as Jr. Engineer in 1982, he was promoted as AEE in 1993, and throughout earned appreciation of his superiors. Challenging his compulsory retirement he has in addition to the common pleas taken by all petitioners pleaded that his service record was completely unblemished but he was involved in the matter local MLA on some personal reason. He has also furnished copies of his APRs for the years 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2K wherein he has been rated "excellent" in all areas specified in the format for reporting. Quoting his service book, his counsel has also urged that with his date of birth as 15.01.1959, and date of entry into service as 6.1.1982 he was neither fifty year .old nor had he completed twenty five years of service when he was compulsorily retired under order of 26.04.2005; and also contended that record of his service did not contain any adverse entries. Respondents reply to the petition is a simple repetition of general replies made in all these petitions without any specific plea to show adverse materials against petitioner. No records to suggest any too have been furnished to counter petitioners claims and documents furnished by him to show that he had excellent service record. (d) Ayaz ud din. EDO: Observations of appointed committee to indict this officer as already quoted show that he was prematurely retired for indulging in corrupt practices in allotment of contracts and his bad reputation. No other records adverse to him have been furnished nor has any thing additional been brought on record. Alongwith common grounds of challenge this petition impugns his premature retirement on the additional ground that his service record which was quite satisfactory in all respects was never looked into which renders the exercise arbitrary. Giving his service profile he has pleaded that after his appointment as village level worker in 1985, whereafter in 1993 he was promoted as Agriculture Extension Officer. In 1997 he was deputed to district rural agency Budgam as Assistant Project Officer and then posted as BDO in 2001; in which capacity he continued to work till impugned order was passed, which is defended by the Govt. counsel by maintaining that the officer deserved to be retired compulsory as his services had become useless. In 1997 he was deputed to district rural agency Budgam as Assistant Project Officer and then posted as BDO in 2001; in which capacity he continued to work till impugned order was passed, which is defended by the Govt. counsel by maintaining that the officer deserved to be retired compulsory as his services had become useless. Perusal of the copies of documents reveals that the APRs of the officer for 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 are recorded as very good with percentage of work targets achieved as hundred percent, which runs counter to the allegations that he did not fully score the targets. For the year 2004 to 2/05, also he has earned "very good" APRs with percentage of work done ranging from 4% to 9% and 37% to 66% in various areas. From 1992-93 to 2K-2001, the APRs are shown to have been recorded as excellent. Nothing to counter these has been brought on record by the official side. (e) Sir Singh. Patwari: As already seen this officer has suffered forced retirement for tampering in records of land acquired at Rangreth and Vovora, whereform he was found unjust for retention in Government service and compulsorily retired under impugned order which he in addition to the common grounds challenges on the ground that his service record which was unblemished was not taken into consideration by the competent authority which rendered the order bad. During his service profile he has stated that after his initial appointment as Patrwari he was promoted as "Girdawar" in the year 2000 and had qualified the departmental examination for promotion as Naib Tehsildar also. He has furnished a copy of his service book to show that he did not suffer any adverse entry at any point of time throughout his career. Nothing contrary has been brought on record to rebut the claims made by petitioner while the reply is a copy of the replies filed in other petitions. 10. After this batch of petitions comes the groups of teachers working in various government schools who have been probably retired from showing poor results during 2002, 2003 and 2004 while posted as Headmasters in the respective schools with petitioner Ab. Ali Dar having been a master only and Hfiz Rafiquee an official. Each one of them besides taking the common grounds already mentioned has pleaded specific circumstances also which may individually be summarized as follows: (a). Zareena Banoo. Ali Dar having been a master only and Hfiz Rafiquee an official. Each one of them besides taking the common grounds already mentioned has pleaded specific circumstances also which may individually be summarized as follows: (a). Zareena Banoo. Besides maintaining that though out her decades long career she has not suffered any adverse entries/actions. Explaining the poor results for years mentioned hereinabove, she has stated that it was due to shortage of staff and other things which despite having been brought to notice of authorities was not cared for. In this behalf she has referred to letter No. GHS/15 dated: 23.3.2002 requesting for posting of a Math knowing teacher in the school, No. 38/GHSD dated: 29.4.2002 reminding the same and informing that if due care was not taken the percentage of results would be below; No. HSD/189 dated: 7.6.2003, asking for a Science teacher for Assist; three masters against vacant posts, and renovation of the insufficient accommodation; No. HSD/67 of 17.6.2003 and HSD/1997 dated: 19.6.2003 requesting for a visit by higher officers to see the difficulties for themselves which appears to have been done by concerned CEO who vide his inspection report No. CEOB/Asstt/15985-92 dated: 15.3.2004 appears to have endorsed what the petitioner had been stating and suggested some remedial measures too. Respondents have however not brought anything on record to controvert these communications even while maintaining that for effective education to pupils the compulsory retirement of petitioner was required which as such was well in fact and law. (b) Zamruda Jan: Besides taking the common grounds as already mentioned to impugn her premature retirement, this petitioner while quoting from copy of communication No. 381/HSB dated: 12.2.2002 written by her to concerned CEO for posting of a math teacher; and has also denied that percentage of her schools was zero as reflected. Inadvertently no materials whatsoever have been furnished by respondents to support the percentage of results projected by appointed Committee to recommend retirement of the petitioner; it is not possible to assess this aspect. Respondents have, however, failed to file reply to this writ petition. (c) Hafeeza Parveen: Headmaster: Like foregoing petitions this one too has complained that she was made scapegoat for faults of others. Respondents have, however, failed to file reply to this writ petition. (c) Hafeeza Parveen: Headmaster: Like foregoing petitions this one too has complained that she was made scapegoat for faults of others. In this behalf one has quoted from the communications claimed to have been addressed by her to higher authorities under No.9/6 dated 27.05.2003 addressed to C.E.O asking for adequate staff against vacant posts; No. BKBL-13/33 dt. 10.08.2004, to the similar effect with certain details; No. BKBL-54/55 Dt. 11.06.2004 asking for sufficient staff by posting eight teachers on vacancies obtaining in the school; and communication No: DCDO/GBL/443-45 dt. 7.5.03, addressed by Dy. C.E.O to C.E.O, stating therein among other things that eight posts of teachers and four posts of masters were lying vacant in Kondabal School where petitioner was then posted, and also complained of inadequate accommodation etc. Nothing to rebut this has been brought on record by respondents, except reiterating their general replies in their reply affidavit field in her writ petition. (d) Saleema Zarger Headmaster: Along with the common grounds general to all these writ petitions this petitioner has additionally pleaded that her service record was quite clear and free of any adverse entries and furnished photocopy of her service book to show the same. She has also furnished photo copies of her performance certificates to controvert the allegation of showing from results and quoted from them to contend that she had shown good results in whatever capacity she worked. Again nothing from official side is on record to rebut the performance certificates furnished by this petitioner. The counter affidavit too is couched in general terms without specific replies to the pleas taken in. (e) Ab. Ali Par Master: This petitioner has added certain more grounds to the general ones pleaded by all. Besides claiming an unblemished record and promotions during service he has also stated that the school where he was posted was located in a far flung area surrounded by security forces and infested with militants due to which the students were not regular in attending or were pursuing studies under scare and pressure of circumstances. He has quoted from his result statements pertaining to period preceding the one under reference i.e. 1989 to 2001, and his service book. He has quoted from his result statements pertaining to period preceding the one under reference i.e. 1989 to 2001, and his service book. The result statements his results between 60% to 100% and nothing to controvert them or the entries in petitioners service book has been brought on record by other side. Reply field by respondents to this petition is no different from others. (f) Mohmmad Hafiz Rafiqe, Accounts Assistant Education Department. This case is slightly different than other cases catalogued together in this group. The petitioner pleads that away back in 1999 he was placed under suspension for alleged excess withdrawals which was wrong against which he instituted SWP No. 261/2001 in this Court, whereupon the notice for recovery was stayed; whereupon he was attached with Dy. Director Actt and Treasuries and was under suspension when the impugned order of his forced retirement was passed, even without saying anything regarding his period of suspension and accordingly seeks quashment of the impugned order for being illegal and rendering his pending writ petition redundant. Reply filed by respondents to this petition does not at all appear to tackle the substance of petition and simply reflects the ipsi-dixit of respondents; who have totally failed to show as to what if any lapses could be attributed to the petitioner when he was under suspension for four years preceding the order of his premature retirement against which his writ petition was pending in the court. No records whatsoever have been furnished hi this case, nor the recommendation of appointed committee or materials, if any, those were supplied to them. As a matter of fact there is nothing on records to suggest any untoward circumstance against this petitioner particularly, as already said by respondents too appears to be cryptic. 11. That being the gist of circumstances and the summary of records obtaining on their files these writ petitions, what emerges there from is this. First, that no records whatever have been furnished to substantiate the observations of appointed committee while recommending the premature retirement of petitioners. Secondly, that no adverse entries in service records of any of them by any superior officer have been furnished to show that they had become deadwood. Thirdly that whatever service and other records available on these files show the concerned petitioners in good light in view of APRs and other materials. Secondly, that no adverse entries in service records of any of them by any superior officer have been furnished to show that they had become deadwood. Thirdly that whatever service and other records available on these files show the concerned petitioners in good light in view of APRs and other materials. Fourthly that nothing has been brought forth to suggest that the entire service records of the petitioner and not fractions thereof only were considered before recommending them for premature retirement or ordering the same. Fifthly in certain cases action visibly appears to have been initiated at behest of certain political people and allegations leveled on that have nowhere been replied. Sixthly that in cases of petitioners who are branded as corrupt, no specific materials have been brought forth to substantiate the allegation, nor has anything been pleaded/produced to suggest that they were ever prosecuted for the same; seventhly that even while these petitioners who had been subjected to some sort of departmental action were facing the same, they were promoted to next higher cadres or given higher grades which in a way amounts to acknowledging them as fit public servants, and finally that no specific pleadings or materials are available from respondent side to rebut their individual pleas taken by each of the petitioners. All these circumstances expose the impugned orders to many questions. At this state, it would be apt to quote from a judgment of Honble Apex court reported as (1980) 4 SCC 321, wherein while spelling out the requirement of supporting materials in cases of compulsory retirement wherein while spelling out the requirement of supporting materials in cases of compulsory retirement, the apex court observed as under:- ".....This takes us to the meat of the matter, viz., whether the appellant was retired because and only because it was necessary in the public interests so to do. It is an affirmative action, not a negative disposition, a positive conclusion, not a neutral attitude. It is a terminal step to justify which the onus is on the Administration, not a matter where the victim must make out the contrary. It is an affirmative action, not a negative disposition, a positive conclusion, not a neutral attitude. It is a terminal step to justify which the onus is on the Administration, not a matter where the victim must make out the contrary. Security of tenure is the condition of efficiency of service.........." "..........so it is that we must emphatically state that under the guise of `public interest if unlimited discretion is regarded acceptable for making an order of premature retirement, it will be the surest menace to public interest and must fail for unreasonableness, arbitrariness and * disguised dismissal......" "...... When an order is challenged and its validity depends on its being supported by public interest the State must disclose the material so that the court may be satisfied that the order is not bad for want of any material whatever which, to a reasonable man reasonably instructed in the law, is sufficient to sustain the grounds of `public interest justifying forced retirement of the public servant....." The observations made, apply with special force in instant cases for almost total lack of materials to support the impugned order. 12. A common ground used by the appointed committee is the alleged bad reputation of petitioners collected from a cross section of the people. This opens up another aspect in terms of their proceedings of appointed committee. Before proceeding ahead, it may be recalled that as per Para 1 (c) of the guidelines adopted by the committee, as reproduced hi opening part of the judgment, the officers whose general reputation was not good could be considered for premature retirement. Under Para 2, the cases of officers responsible for defalcation of money; or facing cases by Vigilance Organization and CB where trial court had framed charges, or involved in moral turpitude would be assumed to have bad reputation. of these, the first two i.e. defalcation of government money, and prosecution, etc. are always matters of record, and none having been brought on fore, or claimed to be existing, in these cases, have to be assumed to be inapplicable ; while regarding involvement in any act of moral turpitude not even a bare allegation is made against any of them. Accordingly one would look for some suggestive material, regarding "adverse reports" on petitioners general reputation, claimed to have been gathered from "cross section of the people". Accordingly one would look for some suggestive material, regarding "adverse reports" on petitioners general reputation, claimed to have been gathered from "cross section of the people". Since the appointed committee, with its given texture, was not a fact finding or investigative machinery, it could not be expected to directly "gather" the reports. Even then, if it undertook the exercise, when and how was that done, is not even hinted at. Obviously therefore, the "reports" could only have reached the committee from different sources, or, let me say, a "cross section of the people". But incidentally, nothing is shown or spoken, muchless spelt out, to indicate the texture of these reports, which if written could have been a part of record, and if verbal should have been reduced into a written memo for the sake of records. On records therefore, there is no such report or even a mention thereof, in absence whereof the observations of the committee as aforesaid, only appear to reflect certain loose impressions, attributable to hearsay, which appears to have been at the back of their mind while recommending the impugned action. Had that not been so, it could perhaps be projected as an arguably plausible back ground for the committee to make its recommendations against the petitioner on some other acceptable ground which, as a matter of fact, is not the case. In the situation, thus, one feels compelled to say that even while a long career of many Government officers was at stake, the adverse decision on their premature retirement appears to have been taken on mere guess work and hear say, without enough materials to support the same. This position appears to be more pronounced in cases of the petitioner EDOs revenue officers and the engineers against whom despite good correct records circumstances seemingly adverse have been dug up from past which has been deprecated by Honble apex court (..........) in following terms: "....One wonders how an officer whose continuous service for 14 years crossing the efficiency bar and reaching the maximum salary in the scale and with no adverse entries at least for five years immediately before the compulsory retirement, could be cashiered on the score that long years ago, his performance had been poor, although his superiors had allowed him to cross the efficiency bar without qualms. A short cut may often be a wrong cut. A short cut may often be a wrong cut. The order of compulsory retirement fails because with vital material, less relevant to the decision, has influenced the decision. Any order which materially suffers from the blemish of overlooking or ignoring, willfully or otherwise, vital facts bearing on the decision is bad in law. Likewise, any action which irrationally digs up obsolete circumstances and obsessively reaches a decision based thereon, cannot be sustained. Legality depends on regard of the totality of material facts viewed in a holistic perspective. For these reasons, the order challenged is obviously bad and we quash it..." The observations apply to these cases with full effect, because of the total absence of materials to supporting impugned order from records, which might not have been so had the impugned recommendations of compulsory retirement been well documented. 13. Regarding the Headmasters and the master who have faced with axe for allegedly showing bad results as shown against each one, in addition to lack of supporting materials, it requires to be observed that respondents have totally failed to show that the requests made by most of them for augmenting the staff strength was paid any heed to or considered at any level. There is also nothing to show as to why those higher up in hierarchy and shouldering greater responsibility kept silent by watching their scenario instead of taking remedial measures to stern their deterioration if observed. It would be apt to observe at this stage that during all the years under reference the valley was virtually groaning under the weight of adverse circumstances and all institutions including educational ones suffered a great deal of decay in quality. Additional thereto are the admitted unfavourable conditions like scarcity of teaching staff and inadequate accommodation hardly conducive to quality education. These factors should perhaps have been taken into stock while considering these cases. Then case of Sh. Rafeque then Acctt Asstt. is quite strange because for having been under suspension from 1999 till date of his forced retirement obviously no covert activity could be attributed to him; nor has for that matter any been shown due to total lack of materials so much so that even the recommendations of appointed committee against him have not been made available . 14. is quite strange because for having been under suspension from 1999 till date of his forced retirement obviously no covert activity could be attributed to him; nor has for that matter any been shown due to total lack of materials so much so that even the recommendations of appointed committee against him have not been made available . 14. On over all consideration of all these matters therefore, I find that all the impugned orders of premature retirement passed against petitioners herein being Nos. 494-GAD of 2005 dt. 27.4.05; 491-GAD of 2005 dt. 27.04.05; 493-GAD of 2005 dt. 27.04.05; 495-GAD of 2005 dt. 27.04.05; 496-GAD of 2005 dt. 27.04.05; 1552-GAD of 2003 dt. 09.12.03; 1276-GAD of 2004 dt. 29.09.04; 1269 of 2004 dt. 20.09.04; 468-GAD of 2005 dt. 26.04.05; 470-GAD of 2005 dt. 26.04.05 and 473-GAD of 2005 dt. 26.04.05 against petitioner(s) Zareena Bano; (Zamruda Jan); Hafiza Parveen; Saleema Zargar; Ab. Ali Dar; Mohd Hafiq Rafique; Wali Mohd Mir; Wali Mohd Bhat; Gh. Mohd Sheikh; Mohd. Ayaz ud din and S. Bir singh, respectively suffer from the vice of non application of mind and have been passed without enough records/materials to substantiate them under the garb of public interest only to circumvent the procedure established by constitution. 15. All these orders are therefore, quashed, leaving the Govt. free to initiate such lawful departmental or criminal proceedings against petitioners or any one among them as may be found to be legal. Copies of this order be placed on each file. Registry to follow up. Disposed of.