JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J. 1. Heard Sri B.K. Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos.1 to 4. Although Sri J. B. Gupta, the Director, Technical Education has been arrayed as opposite party no.5 in the writ petition owing to the allegations of mala fide alleged against him, no one has put in appearance on his behalf. 2. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 15.06.2001 whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service. As per the averments of the writ petition, the petitioner at the relevant time was working as Principal in the Government Polytechnic College, Kanpur when his matter was referred to the Screening Committee for the purposes of recommendation regarding compulsory retirement. It has been stated in the writ petition that with respect to the years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, adverse entries were recorded against the petitioner only at the instance of the opposite party no.5 who had a personal prejudice against the petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid averments, allegations of mala fide have been alleged against the said opposite party but which do not require to be considered. The primary ground of challenge to the order is that the adverse entries with regard to the petitioner most of which were considered by the Screening Committee, had already been nullified by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal and therefore could not have been looked into by the Screening Committee for the purposes of the service record of the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the same has not been passed in public interest and without recording any subjective satisfaction regarding the desirability or otherwise of continuing the petitioner in service. It has also been submitted that the order impugned has been passed without any application of mind and does not record any reasons for its passing. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that a perusal of the Screening Committee will indicate that a total of 23 persons were to be screened but the proceedings with regard to 22 persons were deferred on account of pendency of either applications pending before the U.P. Public State Services Tribunal or due to representations pending before the officials concerned against the adverse entries. He has submitted that it is only the case of the petitioner which was taken up for consideration by the Screening Committee which clearly amounts to hostile discrimination against the petitioner. 4. The learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties while rebutting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order impugned has been passed on the basis of the recommendations of the Screening Committee which has considered the entire service record of the petitioner and has found him fit to be compulsorily retired from service. As such he has submitted that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 5. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The recommendations of the Screening Committee dated 30.05.2001 have been brought on record by the opposite parties themselves by means of the supplementary-counter affidavit annexed as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition. A perusal of the aforesaid Screening Committee's recommendations clearly indicates that a total of 23 names had been submitted before the Screening Committee to take a decision thereon but while the matter pertaining to 22 such persons were deferred due to pending Court case or representations against the adverse entries, the Committee took up the case of the petitioner only. 6. While the Screening Committee indicates that entries pertaining to the last 10 years of the petitioner have been placed before it but the service record as indicated by the Screening Committee shows that entries pertaining to only 8 years from 1988-89 till 1998-99 have been considered by the said Committee. The Screening Committee has thereafter recommended the compulsory retirement of the petitioner on the basis of the entries with regard to the years 1990-91, 1992-93, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1998-99. The opposite parties have also brought on record the service entries pertaining to the petitioner annexed as Annexure No.5 to the same supplementary counter-affidavit. On a comparison of the service record of the petitioner as indicated in Annexure No.5 with the recommendations of the Screening Committee annexed as Annexure No.8 to the supplementary counter-affidavit, it is clear that the Screening Committee has fell in error with regard to the number of years in which adverse entries was recorded against the petitioner. On a comparison of the service record of the petitioner as indicated in Annexure No.5 with the recommendations of the Screening Committee annexed as Annexure No.8 to the supplementary counter-affidavit, it is clear that the Screening Committee has fell in error with regard to the number of years in which adverse entries was recorded against the petitioner. The service record annexed as Annexure No.5 to the supplementary counter-affidavit clearly indicates that while the adverse entries pertaining to the year 1988-89, 1989-90, 1991-92, 1992-93 have already been expunged from the service record of the petitioner either on account of the petition filed by the petitioner against them in the State Public Services Tribunal being allowed or on their being expunged by the opposite parties themselves. After the expunction of the adverse entries for the years indicated hereinabove, the only adverse entries pertaining to the service record of the petitioner is with regard to the years 1990-91, 1995-96 and a part of the year 1998-99 (01.07.1998 till 31.03.1999). The said service record also indicates that the petitioner was awarded an entry of outstanding for the year 1999-2000 and satisfactory for the year 2000-2001 but the aforesaid entries were not placed before the Screening Committee since they were received after 30.05.2001. Entry pertaining to the year 1992-93 whereby adverse entry against the petitioner was quashed by the Tribunal was also received by the Committee after 30.05.2001. On a perusal of the said service entries pertaining to the petitioner, it is thus clear that out of the last 10 years of service, the adverse entries recorded against the petitioner was only for 2 years and a portion of the third year and necessarily reaches the conclusion that the service record pertaining to the petitioner for least 7 years out of 10 years was in his favour. Thus, it is borne out from the record that the recommendations of the Screening Committee are totally contradictory to the service record of the petitioner. 7. Thus, it is borne out from the record that the recommendations of the Screening Committee are totally contradictory to the service record of the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Rajesh Gupta vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others reported in 2013 (3) SCC 514 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon the case of Baikuntha Nath Das vs. District Medical Officer reported in 1992 (2) SCC 299 has held that interference by the Courts in matters pertaining to compulsory retirement is permissible only on the ground (A) that the order has been passed 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another case of Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2012 (3) SCC 580 has also held that the formation of opinion for compulsory retirement is to be based on subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned but such satisfaction must be based on valid materials and it would be permissible for the Courts to ascertain whether a valid material exists or otherwise, on which the subjective satisfaction of the administrative authority is based. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the case of Sunil Kumar Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2018 (3) ESC 1330 (ALL) (LB) and the case of Ram Charitra Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2019 LCD 82 to the same effect. 8. The learned State counsel in support of his submission has relied upon the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain reported in 2002 (3) SCC 641 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the entire service record of a Government servant should be considered while exercising the power under Fundamental Rules 56 (c) of the Fundamental Rules with emphasis on the latter entries. Vijay Kumar Jain reported in 2002 (3) SCC 641 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the entire service record of a Government servant should be considered while exercising the power under Fundamental Rules 56 (c) of the Fundamental Rules with emphasis on the latter entries. It has been further held that the said Fundamental Rules 56 (C) of the Rules read with Explanation (2) empowers the State Government with absolute right to retire an employee on attaining the age of 50 years as also in the case when the integrity of the Government employee or his conduct becomes unbecoming to public interest or obstruct the efficiency in public service. 9. I have perused the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and I am of the opinion that the said judgments are clearly applicable in the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Gupta (supra) and even in the case of Vijay Kumar Jain (supra) has clearly held that although an order of compulsory retirement is not punitive in nature but the authority concerned has to form an opinion based on the subjective satisfaction on a valid material. In case there is any failure of the authority concerned to ascertain the existence of valid material or fails to record his subjective satisfaction with regard to the public interest in ordering compulsory retirement, the order of such compulsory retirement can be said to be invalid particularly if it is not based on any material or that it is arbitrary since no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Jain (supra) has also held that withholding of integrity of a Government servant is a serious matter and the entire service record, character roll or confidential reports which form the basis of the subjective satisfaction has to be considered on the totality of the materials with emphasis on the latter entries. It is to be seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the order of compulsory retirement can be challenged on the ground that it is either arbitrary or not in public interest. 10. It is to be seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the order of compulsory retirement can be challenged on the ground that it is either arbitrary or not in public interest. 10. Applying the aforesaid judgments in the present case and on a comparison of service record of the petitioner with the report of the Screening Committee, it is clearly evident that the recommendations of the Screening Committee are totally contrary to the service record of the petitioner inasmuch as, the Screening Committee did not have the entire latest material of service record of the petitioner till 30.05.2001. The service record of the petitioner available which has been brought on record by the opposite parties themselves clearly indicates that out of the last 10 years of service, the adverse material against the petitioner was only for 2 years and a part of this third year. Even the latter part of the service of the petitioner was much more satisfactory with regard to the earlier portion of the last 10 years. In view thereof it can be clearly said that the recommendation of the Screening Committee were not in consonance with the material service record of the petitioner and as such it can be said to be arbitrary in nature since no reasonable person can arrive at a conclusion which the Screening Committee did. 11. Another factor which is relevant in the present case is that once the matters pertaining to 22 persons whose cases were to be put before Screening Committee were deferred owing to pendency of either proceedings before the Tribunal or on account of the representations against the adverse entries, then it does not stand to reason as to why the case of only the petitioner was taken up for such recommendation by the Screening Committee although the petition filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal was still pending as would be evident from the document annexed as Annexure No.5 to the supplementary counter-affidavit. On account of the said fact also, it can be said that the petitioner was discriminated against. 12. Another factor relevant for the proper adjudication of the case is that a perusal of the impugned order dated 15.06.2001 indicates that the authority concerned has not recorded any subjective satisfaction with regard to the desirability or public interest otherwise of continuing the petitioner in service. 12. Another factor relevant for the proper adjudication of the case is that a perusal of the impugned order dated 15.06.2001 indicates that the authority concerned has not recorded any subjective satisfaction with regard to the desirability or public interest otherwise of continuing the petitioner in service. No reasons whatsoever, have been indicated for following recommendations of the Screening Committee and as such it can be said that the impugned order is totally a non-speaking one. It is settled law that an order passed by an authority involving civil consequences necessarily requires reasons to be recorded which would indicate the mind of the authority concerned with regard to the passing of order. 13. In the case of Union of India and others vs. Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. and another (2005) 6 SCC 675 and Director, Horticulture, Punjab and others vs. Jagjivan Parshad (2008) 5 SCC 539 and M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & others (2010) 9 SCC 496 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already held that any order in the nature of the impugned order requires reasons to be therein. 14. In a view of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the impugned order dated 15.06.2001 and the recommendation of the Screening Committee are unsustainable. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that even otherwise the petitioner would have superannuated from service on 30.06.2006. 15. In view of the above, a writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 15.06.2001 and a further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued directing the opposite party nos.1 to 4 to grant outstanding pensionary benefits to the petitioner by refixing the pay scale of the petitioner and treating him to be in service. The aforesaid is to be completed alongwith a payments of such post retiral benefits within a period six months from the date a copy of this order is produced before the said opposite parties. 16. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed.