Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1907 (ALL)

RAM KUMAR TRIPATHI v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-09-04

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, RANG NATH PANDEY

body2018
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Dwivedi and Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, Advocates for the petitioner and Sri Manjeev Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents. 2. By instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the validity of an order dated 27.2.2018, passed by the State Government, whereby he has been compulsorily retired from the post of Superintendent, Jails under the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 (c) of the Financial Hand Book Vol.II, Part II to IV. 3. The petitioner having been selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission was appointed/posted on 30.7.1990 and at the time of passing of the impugned order compulsorily retiring him, he was working on the post of Superintendent, Jails. 4. The order impugned in this writ petition has primarily been challenged on the ground, inter alia, that the Screening Committee which preceded passing of the order of compulsory retirement, has recorded its minutes which are based on factually incorrect facts and that in the past 10 years, the petitioner was not awarded any adverse entry and further that his integrity was never withheld during his entire service career. The submission on behalf of the petitioner, thus, is that since the finding recorded by the Screening Committee is perverse and if the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner are seen in correct perspective, what is noticeable is that his performance has been gradually increasing rather than decreasing and as such in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order compulsorily retiring the petitioner, which is based on report/recommendation of the Screening Committee, is unlawful and hence, cannot be permitted to be sustained in the eyes of law. 5. Drawing attention of the Court to the recommendations of the Screening Committee, it has further been argued by the learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner that as a matter of fact, the Screening Committee while considering the petitioner’s case for compulsorily retiring him had taken into consideration various facts which were not appropriately placed before the Screening Committee and hence, any such conclusion arrived at by the Screening Committee, cannot be made the basis of the order of compulsory retirement for the reason that the decision of the State Government, in these circumstance, is based on consideration of incorrect and false material. 6. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court while canvassing the case of the petitioner. The judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner are, (1) Baikuntha Nath Das and another v. Chief District Medical Officer Baripada and another, (1992) 2 SCC 299 , (2) Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand and others, (2012) 3 SCC 580 , (3) Rajesh Gupta v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, (2013) 3 SCC 514 and State of Gujrat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314 . He has also placed reliance yet another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, (1978) 1 SCC 405 , to emphasize that the validity of an order made by an authority has to be judged by the reasons mentioned in the order and the same cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel vehemently opposing the prayer made in this writ petition, has contended that the order of compulsory retirement in this case passed by the State Government is based on its opinion that retiring the petitioner would be in public interest and further that such an order can be passed on the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned and that the scope of judicial review of an order of compulsory retirement by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited for the reason that the compulsory retirement is neither a punishment nor does it cast any stigma on the employee being so retired and that action of compulsory retirement is taken on subjective satisfaction of the employer and hence, the judicial review of such matters has to be exercised very sparingly. His submission is that the order of compulsory retirement can be interfered with by this Court only when it is found to be perverse or mala fide or arbitrary or is based on no evidence. He has taken the said argument further and has submitted that the record of the present case clearly establishes that there is no perversity in the decision impugned in this writ petition and that opinion of the State Government for compulsorily retiring the petitioner, is based on relevant materials. 8. He has taken the said argument further and has submitted that the record of the present case clearly establishes that there is no perversity in the decision impugned in this writ petition and that opinion of the State Government for compulsorily retiring the petitioner, is based on relevant materials. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the competing arguments made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the original record which was produced by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 9. The law relating to compulsory retirement is well-settled. The object of compulsory retirement from service is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain a high standard of efficiency in service and that the scope of the judicial scrutiny by the higher Courts in such matters is very limited and is confined to finding out as to whether there was material on the basis of which an opinion could have been reasonably formed that it would be in public interest to retire the employee concerned. It is also equally well-settled that formation of opinion for compulsory retirement is based on subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned, however, such satisfaction has to be based on a valid material and further that it is also permissible for the Courts to ascertain as to whether the valid material existed on which subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned is based or not. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das (supra) has summarized the principles relating to compulsory retirement and interference by the superior Courts in such matters in the paragraph-34 of the report, which is quoted herein under: “34. 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 misbehaviour. (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. 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 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 uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interfere. 11. The said principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been quoted with the approval in the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nand Kumar Verma (supra) and Rajesh Gupta (supra). The said principles have again been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umedbhai M. Patel (supra). Crystallizing the law relating to compulsory retirement Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-11 of the judgment in the case of State of Gujrat v. Umedbhai M. Patel (supra) has stated as under: “11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus: (i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus: (i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure”. 12. Thus, unless the Court in this case finds that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed for mala fide reasons or it is based on no evidence or it is arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person would form such an opinion on the given material or it is found to be perverse, the Court will be reluctant to interfere in this petition. 13. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner while arguing on the scope of judicial scrutiny of an order of compulsory retirement has also placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India and others, (1980) 4 SCC 321 . He has also relied upon yet another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited and another v. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and others, (2009) 15 SCC 221 . 14. He has also relied upon yet another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited and another v. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar and others, (2009) 15 SCC 221 . 14. We may only notice that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two judgments also has held that the order of compulsory retirement can be subjected to judicial review only when it is based on no material or it is arbitrary or it suffers from non-application of mind or when such an order is not supported by any evidence. In an exercise of judicial review to be undertaken by this Court, as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Raj Chadha (supra), the onus is on the State to furnish materials before the Court to justify its decision of compulsorily retiring the Government employee in public interest. 15. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel while agreeing with the submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner as regards the principles relating to scope of interference by this Court in an order of compulsory retirement has further argued that the opinion of the Government has to be formed on the basis of entire service career in general, though the entries of the last 10 years have specific significance. It has further been stated that the judicial review in such cases is permissible only in extra ordinary situations as has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments cited above. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel representing the State-respondents that consideration of adverse materials older than 10 years will not vitiate the order of compulsory retirement and that the entire service record can be taken into account for the purposes of forming an opinion as to whether the employee concerned needs to be chopped off as dead wood in public interest. 16. It has also been argued by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the latest judgment in the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others v. Hari Kishan Verma, (2015) 13 SCC 156 , that since the object of compulsory retirement is primarily to ensure public interest, even if the employee is subsequently promoted, the previous entries cannot be treated to be insignificant. To bring home his submission that entire service record and over all profile of the employee need to be considered for the purposes of formation of opinion for compulsory retirement, reliance has been placed by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.C. Chandel v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and another, (2012) 8 SCC 58 . 17. The minutes of meeting of the Screening Committee held on 3.2.2018 are on record as Annexure CA-2 to the counter-affidavit filed by the State-respondents. The said Screening Committee comprised of Principal Secretary, Department of Prisons, Inspector General of Prison Administration and Reform Services and Special Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of U.P. The Screening Committee while considering the matter was guided by the Government Order dated 26.10.1985, according to which, for the purposes of forming satisfaction in relation to compulsorily retiring a Government employee, the entire service record of the employee has to be seen, however, special emphasis is to be given to the record of the last 10 years. The Government Order further provides that Screening Committee has to see as to what is the level of efficiency/integrity of the employee on the basis of which it needs to be decided as to whether such an employee has to be compulsorily retired in public interest or not. The Screening Committee on the basis of entire service record as also Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner, has observed in its minutes that for various charges, several departmental proceedings were instituted against the petitioner which resulted in inflicting punishment upon the petitioner, out of which some punishment orders have been set aside/stayed by the Hon’ble Court on technical grounds, however, no improvement in the efficiency of the petitioner could be inferred. The Screening Committee has, thus, recorded its satisfaction that the superior officers of the petitioner have categorized his work as ordinary and that the petitioner in the last 10 years has been found guilty of various charges such as charges relating to death of a detenue in jail, recovery of cash and other irregularities during inspections of jails, recovery of telephones and Compact Discs (CD) and certain financial irregularities which have resulted in inflicting upon the petitioner one major penalty and three censure entries. Thus, on the basis of over all service record of the petitioner, the Screening Committee did not find the level of efficiency and work of the petitioner of the level as is expected of a Government employee. Based on such evaluation of the petitioner’s efficiency, the impugned order compulsorily retiring him has been passed. 18. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to a document which has been annexed as Annexure CA-1 appended to the counter-affidavit filed by the State-respondents which gives the details of the punishments awarded to the petitioner in his service career and has stated that various punishments mentioned in the said document have been taken into account by the State Government while recording its satisfaction for retiring the petitioner compulsorily in public interest, though, some of the punishments so taken into account were ineffective (inoperative). In this view, a submission has been made that the Screening Committee has considered irrelevant materials and as such the finding recorded by the Screening Committee that it will be in public interest to compulsorily retire the petitioner for the reason that his level of efficiency and work is not upto the mark, is vitiated because the same is perverse. 19. As per Annexure CA-1, in the entire service career, the petitioner has been inflicted with 14 punishments. In respect of punishment of adverse entry awarded to the petitioner on 10.6.1999, on a sudden raid conducted by the City Magistrate, Sitapur on 19.4.1998, which has been enlisted at Sl.No. 1 of CA-1, it has been stated by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the said adverse entry dated 10.6.1999 could not be treated to be adverse as per the judgment dated 5.6.2009 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal in a Claim Petition No. 237 of 2008, which was filed by the petitioner challenging the said adverse entry. 20. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has stated that by the said order dated 5.6.2009, the adverse entry awarded to the petitioner on 10.6.1999 was not quashed or set aside. The Tribunal in its order dated 5.6.2009 has only provided that the State shall not take into account the said adverse entry awarded to the petitioner for promotion, crossing of efficiency bar and other service matters. The Tribunal in its order dated 5.6.2009 has only provided that the State shall not take into account the said adverse entry awarded to the petitioner for promotion, crossing of efficiency bar and other service matters. He has further stated that said order dated 5.6.2009, passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal is based on Rule 5 of the U.P. Government Servants (Disposal of Representation Against Adverse Annual Confidential Reports and Allied Matters) Rules 1995 (herein after referred to as “1995 Rules), which provides that in case the representation preferred against the adverse entry is not decided within the time stipulated in the said rules, the same cannot be treated to be adverse. The operative portion of the judgment dated 5.6.2009, passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal is quoted herein under: “In view of the discussions made above the claim petition is disposed of finally with the direction to Opposite Parties not to treat the adverse entry awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 10.6.1999, contained as Ananexure No. 1 to the claim petition while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion, crossing of Efficiency Bar and other service matters.” 21. Rule 5 of 1995 Rules provides that where an adverse report is not communicated or a representation against an adverse report has not been disposed of in accordance with Rule 4, such report shall not be treated as adverse for the purposes of promotion, crossing of efficiency bar and other service matters. However, Rule 5 contains an exception in respect of Rule 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, 1956 of the Financial Handbook Volume II, Parts II to IV under which the consideration for compulsorily retiring a Government servant is made. Rules 5 of the 1996 rules is quoted herein under: “5. Report not to be treated adverse.—Except as provided in Rule 56 of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules contained in Financial Handbook Volume II, Parts II to IV, where an adverse report is not communicated or a representation against an adverse report has not been disposed of in accordance with Rule 4, such report shall not be treated adverse for the purposes of promotion, crossing of efficiency bar and other service matters of the Government servant concerned.” 22. Thus, in view of Rule 5 of 1995 Rules itself the said adverse entry has rightly been taken into consideration by the Screening Committee. Thus, in view of Rule 5 of 1995 Rules itself the said adverse entry has rightly been taken into consideration by the Screening Committee. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard, thus, merits rejection. In respect of the punishment mentioned at Sl. No. 2 of Annexure CA-1 appended to the counter-affidavit, relating to adverse entry awarded to the petitioner, vide order dated 13.9.1999, there is nothing on record whereby the said entry could have been treated by the Screening Committee to be inoperative. 23. In respect of censure entry awarded to the petitioner (Sl. No. 3 of Annexure CA-1), vide order dated 22.11.1999 on the basis of irregularities found by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar during inspection of district jail, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said entry was quashed by the State Government, vide order dated 7.2.2005, which has been annexed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition, however, if we examine the order dated 7.2.2005, passed by the State Government, we find that the said order was passed in respect of the adverse Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner pertaining to the year 1999-2000, which was communicated to the petitioner on 2.11.2002. The said adverse entry, thus, does not relate to the censure entry awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 22.11.1999. 24. In respect of the punishment awarded to the petitioner on 17.9.2004 (as enlisted at Sl. No. 4 of Annexure CA-1 appended to the counter-affidavit), it is noticed that the said punishment order was set aside by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, vide order dated 30.1.2009, however, the said entry has not been considered as operative against the petitioner. Similarly, in respect of the punishment awarded to the petitioner, vide order dated 17.9.2002 (as enlisted at Sl.No. 5 of Annexure CA-1 to the counter-affidavit), it is again noticeable that the said punishment order was quashed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, vide its order dated 11.12.2007 and accordingly it has also not been considered as operative by the Screening Committee. 25. In respect of warning given to the petitioner, vide order dated 1.3.2006 (as enlisted at Sl. No. 6 of Annexure CA-1 appended to the counter-affidavit), it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that any warning given to the Government employee cannot be treated to be adverse. 25. In respect of warning given to the petitioner, vide order dated 1.3.2006 (as enlisted at Sl. No. 6 of Annexure CA-1 appended to the counter-affidavit), it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that any warning given to the Government employee cannot be treated to be adverse. However, we notice that said warning has also not been treated to be operative by the Screening Committee 26. So far as the punishment order dated 21.4.2006 (as enlisted at Sl. No. 7 of Annexure CA-1, appended to the counter-affidavit) is concerned, it has been stated by the petitioner that against the said punishment order the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No. 1046(SB) of 2008 before this Court, which though was dismissed by this Court on 9.11.2017, however, petition seeking review of the said order dated 9.11.2017 is pending before this Court and, thus, the said punishment order could not have been considered by the Screening Committee. The punishment order dated 21.4.2006 has been considered as operative by the Screening Committee and we do not find that the Screening Committee has erred in any manner by taking into account the said punishment order for the reason that mere pendency of review petition against the judgment dated 9.11.2017 will not entitle the petitioner to submit that the punishment order dated 21.4.2006 could not have been considered. 27. The punishment awarded to the petitioner, vide order dated 31.8.2006 (as enlisted at Sl.No. 8 of Annexure CA-1 to the counter-affidavit) and the censure entry awarded to the petitioner, vide order dated 12.9.2008 (as enlisted at Sl. No. 9 of Annexure CA-1, appended to the counter-affidavit) have not been treated to be operative for the reasons disclosed in the chart appended as CA-1 to the counter-affidavit. 28. So far as the censure entry awarded to the petitioner on 15.11.2010(as enlisted at Sl.No. 10 of Annexure CA-1, appended to the counter-affidavit) is concerned, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that against the said censure entry, a Claim Petition before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal filed by the petitioner, is pending and hence, the same also could not have been taken into account. However, we are unable to agree with the said submission for the reason that merely on account of pendency of the Claim Petition against the censure entry, it cannot be said that the same could not have been treated to be operative. 29. In respect of caution given to the petitioner, vide Office Memorandum dated 31.1.2002 (as enlisted at Sl.No. 11 of Annexure CA-1, appended to the counter-affidavit) for unnecessary interference in the service matters through his family members, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that this caution/warning pertains to a period beyond 10 years and thus, it could not have any effect on overall evaluation of the petitioner’s service record. The said submission is also not acceptable for the reason that, as observed above, for arriving at the satisfaction as to whether the Government servant is to be compulsorily retired in public interest or not, the entire service record of the employee concerned can be looked into. 30. In respect of censure entry awarded to the petitioner on 14.9.2009 (as enlisted at Sl. No. 12 of Annexure CA-1, appended to the counter-affidavit), it has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that against the said censure entry, the petitioner had preferred a Claim Petition before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal which passed an order on 10.4.2012 for disposal of the appeal and thereafter petitioner had preferred an appeal on 15.1.2010 against the said censure entry dated 14.9.2009, which had been rejected by the State Government on 13.4.2015 and that against the said order, another Claim Petition bearing No. 1885/2014 is pending before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal. It has further been stated that the incident in relation to which the petitioner was censured on 14.9.2009 relates to the year 2007 and hence, the same could not have been considered by the Screening Committee. In this regard what is noticeable is that the censure entry dated 14.9.2009 has yet not been quashed/set aside. 31. Regarding punishment of censure entry awarded to the petitioner, vide order dated 27.2.2015 (as enlisted at Sl.No. 13 of Annexure CA-1, appended to the counter-affidavit), we find that against the said punishment of censure dated 27.2.2015, the petitioner had preferred a Claim Petition No. 13/2016 before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, which has been dismissed and accordingly, the said punishment has been treated to be operative by the Screening Committee. 32. 32. As regards the order dated 11.8.2017 whereby the petitioner was found guilty of causing loss to the State Government and accordingly recovery of Rs. 13,622/- was made from him, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said recovery has been made without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and, thus, the same also could not have been taken into consideration by the Screening Committee. The fact remains that the order dated 11.8.2017 whereby the petitioner was found guilty of causing loss to the State Government and accordingly recovery of Rs. 13,622/- was imposed on him, has not yet been set aside by any higher forum/Court/Tribunal and, hence, we do not find any illegality in the proceedings of the Screening Committee, which has considered the said order to be operative. 33. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that details of last 10 years’ entries of the petitioner have been given in Annexure CA-4 appended to the counter-affidavit filed by the State-respondents which do not indicate even a single adverse entry in the career of the petitioner in past 10 years. According to him, out of last 10 years’ entries, entries pertaining to six years i.e. from 2007-8 to 2012-13 are ‘’very good’ whereas for 2013-14 it is ‘’good’, again for 2014-15 it is ‘’fair’, for 2015-16 it is ‘’very good’ and for 2016-17, the entry is ‘’good/outstanding’. He has, thus, stated that not even a single adverse entry exists in the petitioner’s service record in the past 10 years and since emphasis is to be given to the past 10 years’ Annual Confidential Reports and performance of the petitioner for the purposes of consideration of an employee to be compulsorily retired, the Screening Committee has completely ignored the petitioner’s last 10 years entries, which vitiates the impugned decision. 34. 34. No doubt, as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments cited above and also in terms of the Government Order dated 26.10.1985, the last 10 years’ entries are to be given special emphasis, however, for the purposes of taking a decision for compulsorily retiring a Government servant, his entire service career needs to be taken into account and in case the Screening Committee on the basis of materials available before it comes to the conclusion that on evaluation of the entire service career the petitioner is not found upto the mark in respect of his efficiency, merely because no adverse entry has been awarded to the Government employee in the last 10 years, will not vitiate the decision of the Screening Committee. 35. From the aforementioned discussions relating to the facts of the case, which have been argued with great vehemence by the learned counsel for the petitioner to bring home the ground that the Screening Committee has formed its opinion to compulsorily retire the petitioner in public interest on the basis of incorrect facts placed before it, we do not find that the submissions on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, are factually correct. We have seen the entire original record and the material placed before the Screening Committee as also the proceedings recorded by the Screening Committee which has formed its opinion on the basis of its satisfaction that retaining the petitioner any further in Government service will not be in public interest. 36. As discussed above, the scope of judicially reviewing a decision of the State Government to compulsorily retire a Government servant is very limited; rather is confined to ascertaining as to whether the decision of compulsorily retiring a Government servant is based on no material or consideration of irrelevant material or mala fide or the satisfaction arrived at is such that a person of common prudence would not form any such opinion. If we examine the facts of this case on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the entire records, we find that the petitioner has utterly failed to bring home any such ground on which the impugned decision of the State Government to compulsorily retire him, can be interfered with. The satisfaction of the Screening Committee is subjective in nature and the same can be upset only if it is based on no material or irrelevant material. 37. As discussed above, the Screening Committee has considered the entire service record of the petitioner and has arrived at its conclusion that compulsorily retiring the petitioner is in public interest on the basis of relevant material placed before it. In the light of the discussions made above, we are not inclined to interfere in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.