JUDGMENT & ORDER : Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, J. 1. The prayer in the present petition is to set aside the orders Annexure P/6 and Annexure P/7 dated 15.05.2000 vide which the petitioner was ordered to be compulsorily retired from service after giving him pay for 3 months’ in lieu of the notice period with a further prayer to grant selection grade after completion of 9 years and 18 years of service from the date he becomes entitled for it. 2. While praying for setting aside the impugned orders dated 15.05.2000, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two fold arguments. Firstly, both the orders are cyclostyle orders and have been passed without application of mind as no reason has been assigned behind the compulsory retirement of the petitioner except the ground of public interest and merely by mentioning that the petitioner is retired in public interest, cannot be a ground to retire the petitioner as the explanation for the public interest is to be indicated before passing any such order of compulsory retirement. Secondly, the said order is malafide. The petitioner was transferred four times within a short span of 1½ years and even his service book was not complete. The pay from January, 1999 to August, 1999 was not given to him. The petitioner had filed representation for denial of his pay for the eight months. Therefore, the order of compulsory retirement has been passed as a counter to the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments: (1) Rajat Baran Roy and others v. State of West Benal and others reported in (1999) 4 SCC 235 , (2) M.S. Bindra v. Union of India and others reported in (1998) 7 SCC 310 , (3) Hans Raj v. State of Punjab and others reported in (1985) 1 SCC 134 as well as by this Court in the case of Syed Mubarak Ali v. State of Rajathan and another reported in 2000(2) WLC (Raj.) 474. Reply has been filed. 4. As per the reply, the appointing authority i.e. the respondent No.5 passed the order of compulsory retirement on 15.05.2000 retiring the petitioner from service in public interest. He was furnished a bank draft for Rs.10,142/- representing the amount of pay and allowances in lieu of the three months’ previous notice along with the order of compulsory retirement. 4. As per the reply, the appointing authority i.e. the respondent No.5 passed the order of compulsory retirement on 15.05.2000 retiring the petitioner from service in public interest. He was furnished a bank draft for Rs.10,142/- representing the amount of pay and allowances in lieu of the three months’ previous notice along with the order of compulsory retirement. The petitioner was retired compulsorily after considering his entire service record. The Internal Screening Committee as well as Review Committee considered the entries in the confidential record/character rolls, both favourable and adverse in the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs). His service record was average. The Reporting Officer of the petitioner for the year 1996-97 had made entries to the effect that the petitioner used to come to the office taking liquor and he had no interest towards performing government duties. He had not given his co-operation in performing the work of forest protection and development. Further, under the enquiries initiated under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 against the petitioner, he had been punished twice with the punishment of censure for misconduct committed by him vide orders dated 19.12.1986 and 30.12.1989. After considering the entire service record of the petitioner, the Internal Screening Committee as well as Review Committee made an opinion that the petitioner is required to be compulsory retired in the public interest. Accordingly, the appointing authority retired the petitioner from services in public interest vide order dated 15.05.2000. 5. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. As per the guidelines issued vide State Government’s Order dated 21.04.2000, the respondent No.5 constituted the Internal Screening Committee and the said Committee considered the entire service record of all the Foresters and other employees who had completed 15 years qualifying service. The report of the Internal Screeing Committee was reviewed by the Review Committee constituted by the State Government. After considering the entire record and APARs of the petitioner, the Committee opined that it would be in the public interest to retire the petitioner from service compulsorily. Thus, the order dated 15.05.2000 was passed in public interest in pursuance to the decision of the review committee. 6. After considering the entire record and APARs of the petitioner, the Committee opined that it would be in the public interest to retire the petitioner from service compulsorily. Thus, the order dated 15.05.2000 was passed in public interest in pursuance to the decision of the review committee. 6. The photo copies of the relevant record placed before this Court shows that the petitioner was compulsory retired on the basis of the decision of the Internal Screening Committee as well as the Review Committee who considered the entire service record of the petitioner along with his APARs. He was found to be inefficient in his performance of his official duties and has lost his utility. The record which was considered was the entries in the APARs and the character rolls. As per the Annual Appraisal Report of the petitioner for the year 1996-97, the Reporting Officer had entered grave adverse remarks against the petitioner. The petitioner concealed the fact that during his tenure, he was punished with the punishment of Censure for the misconduct of remaining absent from duties without sanction under the RCS(CCA) Rules vide order dated 19.12.1986. He remained suspended from 03.05.1985 to 30.10.1985. He was again suspended from 25.01.1986 to 20.03.1986 and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 for allegations of creating hurdles in government work and using abusive language with his senior officers after taking liquor on the duty and committed irregularities in the recovery of government revenue. Another order of Censure dated 30.12.1989 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 7. The argument that no notice was issued, cannot be sustained as the three months’ salary and allowances in lieu of the said notice was duly paid. 8. The submission that the order impugned was passed as a counter to his representation to pay his eight months salary cannot be sustained. It is specifically stated in the reply that the same was paid to the petitioner in the month of July, 2000 after completion of the enquiry initiated against him for unauthorized absence from duty. Thus, the ground that the order impugned was passed as a counter is a figment of imagination of the petitioner. 9. The argument that the order impugned was cyclostyle too does not help. Thus, the ground that the order impugned was passed as a counter is a figment of imagination of the petitioner. 9. The argument that the order impugned was cyclostyle too does not help. As per the Circular dated 21.04.2000, the order of compulsorily retirement was required to be passed on the model form annexed with the Circular. Moreover, the record shows that the same has been passed on the basis of the report of the Internal Screening Committee as well as the Review Committee, who, further took into consideration the service record and the APARs of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, do not help the petitioner in the facts of his case. 10. In view of the above, the Court is satisfied that the order of compulsory retirement was passed in accordance with Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 as amended by Notification dated 01.12.1999 and the said order satisfies all the ingredients requisite for passing an order of compulsory retirement. 11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit.