JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, an ex-defence personnel, who was functioning as Hostel Superintendent in the Sainik School, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, has filed this writ petition to quash the office memorandum dated 29.09.2010, by which he has been directed to retire from service with effect from 31.10.2010 on completing 55 years of age on 26.10.2010 in terms of Rule 5.30 of Sainik Schools Society Rules & Regulations 1997, and issue direction to the opposite parties to grant consequential benefits, as due and admissible to him in accordance with law. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner had been working in the post of Airman in the Indian Air Force for the period from 28.08.19.73 to 31.08.1998. After his retirement from service of indian Air Force, he, being an ex-defence personnel, was selected by the selection committee of the Sainik School, Orissa, Bhubaneswar for the post of Hostel Superintendent on 25.06.1991. Pursuant thereto, he submitted his joining report on 15.07.1991 and continued to discharge the duties assigned to him. During his continuance as Hostel Superintendent, he had never received any adverse remarks. But, on 21.09.2010, he was served with a notice of memorandum by the Principal of the Sainik School with a direction to submit his views on the allegations in connection with Sahid Nagar P.S. Case. No. 275 of 2010 for the offence under Section 420 IPC In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply stating that it was a false allegation raised against him which was also not known to him properly and that after obtaining the police paper the detailed explanation could be submitted in that respect. Further, the allegation raised in the show-cause was not relating to any service matter of the institution, but it was related to an outside institution which falsely implicated the petitioner in an offence under Section 420 IPC due to lodging of FIR by an outsider before the Sahid Nagar Police Station on 12.09.2010. In the said case, the O.I.C., Sahid Nagar Police Station called him at about 1.00 P.M. on 13.09.2010, and oh his appearance he was arrested and forwarded to the court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar and was released on bail by executing bail bond at about 5.00 P.M. on the same day. In the said case, the O.I.C., Sahid Nagar Police Station called him at about 1.00 P.M. on 13.09.2010, and oh his appearance he was arrested and forwarded to the court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar and was released on bail by executing bail bond at about 5.00 P.M. on the same day. Due to mental tension, the petitioner could not be able to inform the said fact to the authority on the same day, but on the next day, i.e., 14.09.2010 he intimated the said fact to the Principal of the institution. Thereby, he had not committed any misconduct knowingly and deliberately affecting the dignity of the institution When the matter was thus stood, the petitioner was served with an office memorandum on 29.09.2010 stating, inter alia, that he was completing 55 years of age on 26.10.2010 and it was decided by the competent authority not to extend his service as Hostel Superintendent in the School beyond 55 years of age w.e.f. 27.10.2010. Accordingly, he was advised to submit all the required papers to the Establishment Section to process the admissible retirement benefits and also complete the clearance formalities at the earliest directing him to retire from service in the afternoon of 31.10.2010 as per Rule 5.30 of Sainik Schools Society Rules and Regulations 1997 Hence this application. 3. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. R. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the service of the petitioner has not been extended on completion of 55 years of age, though under Rule 5.30 of the Sainik Schools Society Rules & Regulations, 1997, he could have been allowed to continue till he attains the age of 58 years subject to the conditions that the Principal satisfied himself every year regarding the efficient performance of service by the staff and the medical fitness is satisfied by the School Medical Officer. It is further contended that such Rule 5.30 of Sainik Schools Society Rules & Regulations, 1997 had undergone amendment, pursuant to which a circular dated 06.10.1998 of the Headmaster has been issued indicating that the retirement age for the academic staff, administrative staff and the general employees would be 60 years and the continuation in service of administrative staff and the general employees beyond 55 years would be subject to annual review of performance and health by the Principal and the Medical Officer respectively. The academic staff would retire at 60 years of age without any review. The date of retirement of an employee shall be the last date of the month in which he is due to retire. Without following these amended Rules and without recording any reasons, while conducting annual review of performance and health by the Principal and the Medical Officer, the order impugned dated 29.09.2010 in Annexure-4 was issued which is to be quashed and the petitioner should be allowed to continue till he attains the age of superannuation as per amended Rule 5.30 of Sainik Schools Society Rules & Regulations, 1997. To substantiate his contention's, he has relied upon the-judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in All India Sainik School Employees Association v. Union of India in C.W.J.C. No. 3384 of 1998(R) disposed of on 14.05.2009. 4. Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India contended with vehemence that the performance of the petitioner was assessed by the Principal of the Sainik School. Since there are ample materials available against the petitioner, office memorandum dated 29.09.2010 was issued as per Rule 5.30 of Sainik Schools Society Rules & Regulations, 1997. It is further contended that as per the aforesaid Rules and Regulations of the Sainik School, the continuation in service of administrative staff and general employees beyond the age of 55 years is subject to annual review of the performance and health by the Principal and the Medical Officer respectively. Admittedly the petitioner was ex-defence personnel and was appointed as Hostel Superintendent on 15.07.1991 in the Sainik School, Bhubaneswar and he attained the age of 55 years on 26.10.2010 Because of observation made by the Chairman, Local Board of Administration, Sainik School, Bhubaneswar, who was the authority for general administrative supervision on the School on the basis of the general activities during May 2001, the office memorandum dated 29.09.2010 was issued Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority concerned in superannuating the petitioner from the services at the age of 55 years in terms of Rule 5.30 of the Sainik Schools Society Rules & Regulations 1997 Therefore, he claims for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. This Court heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. R. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the opposite parties. 5. This Court heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. R. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the opposite parties. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. The Sainik School, Orissa, Bhubaneswar is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Under Paragraph-17(H) of the Memorandum of Association, the honorary secretary of the Sainik School Society is authorized to make rules and regulations for the society and make amendment to the rules, as and when necessary, and the same is to be rectified by the Board of Governors. The Board of Governors under the Chairmanship of Defence Minister of India is the Chief Executive Body of the Sainik School. In exercise of power conferred under paragraph-17(H) of the Memorandum of Association, a detailed rules and regulations for Sainik School located" in various parts of the country were framed called "Sainik Schools Society Rules and Regulations of 1997" which came into force w.e.f. 26th March, 1997. Under the heading age limit, the Principal of the Sainik School is empowered to utilize his option under Rule 5.30 of Sainik Schools Society Rules and Regulations, 1997. For the sake of convenience, Rule 5.30 of the Sainik Schools Society Rules and Regulations, 1997 is extracted hereunder: "The retirement age for the academic staff would be 60 years and that of the administrative staff and general employees 55 years However, the administrative staff and general employees can continue to be in service upto 58 years subject to the following conditions:- (i) The Principal satisfies himself every year regarding the efficient performance of services by the staff, and (ii) The medical fitness as certified by the School Medical Officer." 7. The aforesaid Rule 5.30 was subsequently amended and circulated on 14.09.1998 which reads as follows:- "The retirement age for the academic staff, administrative staff and the general employees would be 60 years, the continuation in service of administrative staff and the general employees beyond 55 years would be subject to annual review of performance and health by the Principal and the Medical Officer respectively. The academic staff would be retire at 60 years of age without any review. The academic staff would be retire at 60 years of age without any review. The date of retirement of an employee shall be the last date of the month in which he is due to retire. The above amendment shall be effective from 30 May 1998." The same was also circulated, vide circular dated 06.10.1998, amongst all the staff members. 8. The office memorandum dated 29.09.2010 in Annexure-4 reads as follows: "OFFICE MEMORANDUM EXTENSION OF SERVICE BEYOND THE AGE OF 55 YEARS 1. Reference rule 5.30 of Sainik Schools Society Rules & Regulations 1999. 2. You will be completing 55 years of age on 26 October 2010 In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Sainik Schools Society Rules & Regulations 1997 and in exercise of the powers conferred by relevant rule(s), it has been decided by the Competent authority not to extend your services as Hostel superintendent in the school beyond the age of 55 years w.e.f. 27 October 2010 3. You are hereby advised to submit all the required papers to the Establishment Section to process the admissible retirement benefits and also complete the clearance formalities at the earliest. You will retire from service in the afternoon of 31 October 2010. “No. SSB/1008/PC/1212 Dated: 29 Sept. 2010 (KS Noor) Capt (IN) Principal” 9. By the time Annexure-4 was issued on 29.09.2010, Rule 5.30 of the Sainik Schools Society Rules & Regulations, 1997 has already undergone amendment where the retirement age for the academic staff, administrative staff and the general employees prescribed as 60 years. It has also been clarified in the amended Rule 5.30 that the continuation in service of administrative staff and the general employees beyond 55 years would be subject to annual review of performance and health by the Principal and the Medical Officer respectively Admittedly, the petitioner had attained the age of 55 years as on 26.10.2010 The authority did not extend his service beyond 55 years of age on the plea of Rule 5.30 of Sainik Schools Society Rules and Regulations, 1997 Nothing adverse has been communicated against the petitioner in the name of annual review of performance and health by the Principal and the Medical Officer respectively, but the impugned office memorandum retiring the petitioner has been issued on his attaining the age of 55 years. It is no doubt true that taking into consideration the annual review of performance and health by the Principal and the-Medical Officer respectively, the petitioner could have been retired from service before attaining the final age of retirement under the pre-amended Sainik Schools Society Rules & Regulations, 1997 at the age of 55 years, or 58 years, and after amendment at the age of 60 years. 10. In the preliminary counter affidavit the opposite parties have taken a stand at paragraph-6 which reads thus- "6. That the averment of para 4 is incorrect and denied by the O.P. The records of the petitioner maintained in the Sainik School, Bhubaneswar reveals that during his tenure as Hostel Superintendent, he was served with advisory notes, counseling notes, warnings etc for in-disciplined activities, dereliction of duty, doubtful integrity, lack of sincerity/devotion towards duty etc. in this context, it would be worth mentioning here that the Chairman, Local Board of Administration, Sainik School Bhubaneswar, who is the authority for general administrative supervision on the school, has made the following observation about the petitioner on his general activities during May 2001: "Having perused the representations of Shri R.C. Mohapatra, the Hostel Supdt. Parawise comments by Principal, Sainik School Bhubaneswar and.' recommendations of Commander, B & O Sub Area, I am of the opinion that adequate opportunity has been afforded to Sri R.C. Mohapatra to improve his performance by frequent counseling by the Principal Sainik School Bhubaneswar. It is evident that in spite of such repeated counseling and warnings issued by the Principal, Sri R.C. Mohapatra has not improved his performance and conduct. To construe the counseling and warning letters issued by the Principal as harassment and torture, as alleged by Petitioner, is a complete distortion of the actual events". On query being made by this Court whether such performance report has ever been communicated to the petitioner, Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for Union of India contended that the same has been mentioned in the counter affidavit and as such no communication has been made to the petitioner. 11. On query being made by this Court whether such performance report has ever been communicated to the petitioner, Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for Union of India contended that the same has been mentioned in the counter affidavit and as such no communication has been made to the petitioner. 11. In Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 the apex Court held as follows- "Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority, cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow old." 12. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, the apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 851 , held as follows- "......when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. Similar view has also been taken by this Court in various judgments. 13. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. Similar view has also been taken by this Court in various judgments. 13. In absence of any such reasons assigned in the order impugned dated 29.09.2010, subsequent explanation given in the counter affidavit for retiring the petitioner from service at the age of 55 years cannot be taken into consideration, in view of the fact that Rule 5.30 of the pre amended Sainik Schools Society Rules & Regulations, 1997 clearly indicates that continuation in service beyond 55 years of age of the administrative staff and general employees is subject to annual review of the performance and health by the Principal and the Medical Officer respectively, whereas amended Rule 5.30 provides that the retirement age for the academic staff, administrative staff and the general employees would be 60 years, but, however, the continuation in service of administrative staff and the general employees beyond 55 years would be subject to annual review of performance and health by the Principal and the Medical Officer respectively. In absence of such materials, the action so taken pursuant to office memorandum dated 29.09.2010 cannot sustain in the eye of law. 14. In order to ascertain the correct position and to find out the correctness of the contentions raised by Assistant Solicitor General of India, the petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 18635 of 2014 for production of records. On consideration of the same, this Court vide order dated 25.06.2015 directed Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Asst. Solicitor General of India to produce the record before this Court within two weeks for just and proper adjudication of the matter. In compliance of the same, Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Asst. Solicitor General of India produced the record before this Court. On perusal of the same, this Court finds that the Principal has communicated, vide letter dated 20.07.2015, incorporating the annual confidential reports of four years starting from 1st July 2006 to 30th June 2007, 1st July 2007 to 30 June 2008, 1st July 2008 to 30 June 2009 and 1st July 2009 to 30th June 2010 and abstract of the personal dossier and also personal file records. From the same it also reveals that for having not been provided with a suitable accommodation the petitioner had approached this Court by filing OJC No. 5375 of 2000, which was disposed of on 30.06.2000 stating that no order can be issued in the matter except to observe that the concerned authority may look into the grievance of the petitioner and take an appropriate decision thereon and pending consideration of his grievance, the said authority may permit the petitioner to remain in occupation of the present premises in question Thereafter, the representation of the petitioner having been rejected, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 13201 of 2005, but this Court, vide order dated 13.02.2006, dismissed the said writ petition. 15. From the above facts, it is made clear that from time to time, being an employee of Sainik School, when the petitioner wanted a quarter, the same was rejected. Thereafter, employer and employee relationship got strained and from time to time the very same Principal issued show-cause notice to the petitioner and to that the petitioner submitted his reply, but without considering the same in proper perspective, he was given notice to retire from service on attaining the age of 55 years. Had there been serious allegations against the petitioner, he could not have been allowed to continue in service much prior to attaining the age of 55 years of age: Contention is raised in the counter affidavit that extension of age of retirement from 55 years was not considered by the Principal basing on the annual review of performance: But nothing has been placed on record to indicate that any past performance report or past service record had ever been communicated to the petitioner. Action taken on the basis of un-communicated materials available against the petitioner cannot also sustain in the eye of law and the same is in gross violation of principle of natural justice. 16. The adverse materials which have been collected and placed on record that akin to the adverse remarks against the petitioner. Therefore, in Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725 , the apex Court held that the requirement of communication of the entries flow from the constitution obligation of fairness, non-arbitrariness and natural justice. 16. The adverse materials which have been collected and placed on record that akin to the adverse remarks against the petitioner. Therefore, in Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725 , the apex Court held that the requirement of communication of the entries flow from the constitution obligation of fairness, non-arbitrariness and natural justice. The rules or administrative instructions generally cast an obligation upon the authorities to communicate the adverse remarks to the employee against whom such remarks have been made, to enable him to make a representation. In Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1622 : (1979) 2 SCC 368 , the apex Court held as follows: "The principle is well-settled that in accordance with the rules of natural justice, an adverse report in a confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its object, partially, being to enable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, not arising out of any fault on the part of the appellant, though the adverse report was communicated to him, the Government has not been able to consider his explanation and decide whether the report was justified. In these circumstances, it is difficult to support the non-issuance of the integrity certificate to the appellant. The chain of reaction began with the adverse report and the infirmity in the link of causation is that no one has yet decided whether that report' was justified. We cannot speculate, in the absence of a proper pleading, whether the appellant was not found suitable otherwise, that is to say, for reasons other than those connected with the non-issuance of an integrity to him." In State of Gujarat v. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529 , the apex Court held that the purpose of communication of adverse entry is to afford an opportunity to the employee to improve himself or to explain his conduct. 17. Therefore, any action taken on the basis of un-communicated materials violates principles of natural justice. 17. Therefore, any action taken on the basis of un-communicated materials violates principles of natural justice. The word 'nature' literally means the innate tendency or quality of things or objects and the word 'just' means upright, fair or proper. The 'expression 'natural justice' would, therefore, mean the innate quality of being fair. Then the soul of natural justice is 'fair play in action'. Natural justice, another name of which is common sense justice, is the name of those principles which constitute the minimum requirement of justice and without adherence to which justice would be a travesty. Natural justice accordingly stands for that fundamental quality of fairness which being adopted, justice may not only be done but also appears to be done. 18. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, as well as the law laid down by the apex Court, and applying the same to the present context, this Court is of the considered view that the action taken by the opposite parties in not extending the service of the petitioner as Hostel Superintendent in the Sainik School beyond 55 years of age w.e.f. 28.10.2010 cannot sustain in the eye of law. Thereby the office memorandum issued on 29.09.2010 in Annexure-4 is liable to be quashed and hereby quashed. The petitioner is to continue in his service subject to compliance of the amended Rule 5.30 of Sainik Schools Society Rules & Regulations, 1997 and he is entitled to get the benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law. 19. The writ petition is thus allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The record so produced be returned forthwith to the Assistant Solicitor General of India.