ORDER : Heard Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri T.G.S. Srivastava, Ld. Government Pleader for Services-I. 2. The prayer made in the present Writ Petition is as under : “It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court in the interests of justice be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particular in the nature of “Writ of Mandamus” declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly the 2nd Respondent in issuing the retirement / relieving proceedings vide Proc.No.SAAP/ A1/ 11024/2018, dated 18.10.2022 (served through E-Mail dated 20.10.2022), without being put on notice, without following the due process of law and in violation of principles of natural justice, without affording any opportunity of being heard, as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, in violation Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 of G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 04.05.1993, and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set-aside the retirement / relieving proceedings vide Proc.No.SAAP /A1/ 11024/2018, dated 18.10.2022 and pass such orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to the circumstances of the case” FACTS OF THE CASE: 3. Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has submitted the facts in this case to the effect that the Writ Petitioner was appointed as Kho-Kho & Kabaddi Coach on 23.09.1989, and that he was kept on probation; that on completion of probation period, on 01.01.1993 the Writ Petitioner was regularised in service; that, over the years, the Writ Petitioner has served as Kho-Kho & Kabaddi Coach in the Districts of Chittoor, Prakasam and West Godavari; that he was promoted in the year 2000 as Chief Coach and was posted at Kakinada District; that he worked as Chief Coach upto 2006; that the Writ Petitioner was posted at Vizianagaram District as District Sports Development Officer (DSDO) in the year 2006; thereafter under the same designation (DSDO), the Writ Petitioner was posted in Guntur District and Krishna District; that in the year 2016, the Writ Petitioner was posted at the Head Quarters of the Respondent No.2 namely The Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh (SAAP) at Vijayawada as Sports Officer (Grade-I); and, that during this period, the Writ Petitioner was diagnosed with a heart-ailment (Ischemic Heart Disease), and that, he had been taking treatment. It is further submitted that later the Writ Petitioner was posted as Assistant Director (Technical) & Administrative Officer in the Head Quarters of the Respondent No.2 at Vijayawada. CAUSE OF ACTION: 4. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner further submitted that vide E-mail dated 20.10.2022, the Writ Petitioner was compulsorily retired from service vide Proceedings No.SAAP/A1/11024/2018, dated 18.10.2022 by invoking Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 of G.O.Ms.No.25, Employment Generation and Youth Services (YSS) Department, dated 04.05.1993. The Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit the sequence of events to the effect that while working as Assistant Director (Technical) & Administrative Officer at Respondent No.2 Head Quarters, vide Order dated 07.07.2022 bearing Proceedings No.SAAP/A1/2368/2022 the Writ Petitioner was transferred and posted to District Sports Authority, Alluri Sita Rama Raju Paderu District as Grade-I Coach (for Kho-Kho & Kabaddi) on "administrative grounds"; that the Writ Petitioner herein had joined at the transferred place on 14.07.2023 and applied for Medical Leave vide Letter dated 18.07.2022 owing to the fact that the Writ Petitioner was suffering from “Ischemic Heart Disease, Post PTCA, DM and HTN”. 5. It is further submitted that the Writ Petitioner underwent Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA). The Writ Petitioner had annexed the relevant Medical Certificate (medical advice to take rest from 18.07.2022 to 17.08.2022) issued by Dr. P.V. Raghava Sarma, MD, DM, Chief Cardiologist along with his Letter addressed to the Respondent No.2; that the Medical Leave Application dated 18.07.2022 of the Writ Petitioner was accepted by the Respondent No.2 vide Proceedings No.SAAP/Estt/11030/6/2019, dated 17.08.2022. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that while the Medical Leave Application was submitted on 18.07.2022 seeking medical leave up to 17.08.2022, the Medical Leave was sanctioned only on the last day i.e. on 17.08.2022. 6. It is further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that while the Medical Leave Application was submitted on 18.07.2022 seeking medical leave up to 17.08.2022, the Medical Leave was sanctioned only on the last day i.e. on 17.08.2022. 6. It is further submitted that the Writ Petitioner herein submitted another Medical Leave Application (second one) on 17.08.2022 with a request to extend the medical leave for a period of 47 days from 18.08.2022 to 03.10.2022 with half pay commuted to full pay for the above period; that the Writ Petitioner was advised by the treating Cardiologist to take rest; that the leave sanctioning authority has neither sanctioned the medical leave nor had declined till the last day i.e., till 03.10.2022; that the Writ Petitioner submitted an other Medical Leave Application (third one) dated 04.10.2022 with a request to extend the period of medical leave for another period of 45 days from 04.10.2022 to 17.11.2022 with half pay commuted to full pay for the above period; that the Respondent No.3 has forwarded the Medical Leave Application of the Writ Petitioner dated 04.10.2022 for consideration of the Respondent No.2; that the Medical Leave Applications dated 17.08.2022 (second one) and 04.10.2022 (third one) were also similarly supported by the Doctor Certificates of Dr. P.V. Raghava Sarma, MD, DM, Chief Cardiologist of Lalitha Super Specialities Hospital (P) Limited, Guntur; that the Respondent No.2, on receipt of the Proceedings dated 10.10.2022 from the Respondent No.3 along with the Medical Leave Application supported by the Doctor Certificates, had issued the Impugned Proceedings dated 18.10.2022 vide E-mail dated 20.10.2022 "compulsorily retiring" the Writ Petitioner by invoking the Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 of G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 04.05.1993. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE WRIT PETITIONER 7. In this backdrop, the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner contended that the Impugned Order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, and that it is irrational and arbitrary, inasmuch as, the Writ Petitioner was not served with any advance Notice as per Sub-Rules (4) and (5) of Rule 25. It is further submitted that invocation of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 of G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 04.05.1993 is unwarranted and illegal insofar as the Writ Petitioner is concerned and that the impugned action by the Respondent No.2 is tainted with malice besides being high handed and unilateral. 8. Ld. It is further submitted that invocation of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 of G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 04.05.1993 is unwarranted and illegal insofar as the Writ Petitioner is concerned and that the impugned action by the Respondent No.2 is tainted with malice besides being high handed and unilateral. 8. Ld. Counsel would submit that insofar as the Writ Petitioner is concerned, the situations to invoke the Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 are not existent as the "ascending career" of the Writ Petitioner is a reflection of his efficiency, sincerity and dedication towards work, and therefore, he could not have therefore been treated as dead-wood, and is unsuitable to continue employment in "public interest". It is further submitted that ill-health and severe ailments are a natural consequence in a human life cycle and that the Respondent No.2 Authority ought to have "rationally" and "objectively" considered the medical advice rendered by a specialist and the request of the Writ Petitioner to grant medical leave. He further submits that the approach of the Respondent No.2 in "compulsorily retiring" the Writ Petitioner without looking into his long and uneventful service career by invoking such provisions (Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25) is irrational, arbitrary, unilateral and perverse. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would further submit that the Writ Petitioner has not committed any illegality and that seeking leave on medical grounds, substantiated by proper medical advice by a specialist ought to have been considered by the Respondent No.2 in a just, reasonable and humane manner. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that Ischemic Heart Disease is a serious health condition and that for the sincere services rendered without any blemish since 1989 till date would warrant the Writ Petitioner to be given a suitable ground job so as to utilise the vast experience of the Writ Petitioner in Kho-Kho & Kabaddi Sports. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would also submit that soon before the transfer of the Writ Petitioner to Alluri Sita Rama Raju Paderu District as Grade-I Coach, the Writ Petitioner was in fact serving at the Head Quarters in the capacity of Assistant Director (Technical) & Administrative Officer at Vijayawada diligently. Ld. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would also submit that soon before the transfer of the Writ Petitioner to Alluri Sita Rama Raju Paderu District as Grade-I Coach, the Writ Petitioner was in fact serving at the Head Quarters in the capacity of Assistant Director (Technical) & Administrative Officer at Vijayawada diligently. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that Sub-Rules (4) & (5) of Rule 25 of G.O.Ms.No.25 E.G & Y.S (YSS) Dept., dated 04.05.1993 has not been followed by the Official Respondents and that on this ground alone the Impugned Order has to be set aside. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS 10. Sri T.G.S. Srivastava, Ld. Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that the State is promoting sports culture on priority basis and has been conducting various tournaments to boost up to the zeal and spirit of talented players and that the state was doing talent hunt at gross root level. Ld. Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that the State has taken up development of infrastructure projects under Khelo India to provide access to sports. 11. It is further submitted that continuous Applications of leave on medical grounds by the Writ Petitioner is stalling all the sports activities stated supra, thereby jeopardising the dreams of the players representing the District which inevitably cause lot of inconvenience to sports administration. It is further submitted that the continuous Leave Applications on the part of the Writ Petitioner would indicate that the Writ Petitioner cannot discharge the field duties assigned to him, since the Writ Petitioner is physically not fit to be a Coach. It is further stated that since the Writ Petitioner is suffering from chronic heart disease and unable to attend to training duties, the Respondent No.2 was constrained to invoke the Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 of G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 04.05.1993 in the interest of players representing the District of Alluri Sita Rama Raju Paderu District. REJOINDER OF LD. COUNSEL FOR WRIT PETITIONER 12. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Paragraph Nos.9 to 12 of the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.2 to submit that the averments in these Paragraphs would reflect the irrational, unjust and unreasonable approach on the part of the Respondent No.2. The Ld. REJOINDER OF LD. COUNSEL FOR WRIT PETITIONER 12. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Paragraph Nos.9 to 12 of the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.2 to submit that the averments in these Paragraphs would reflect the irrational, unjust and unreasonable approach on the part of the Respondent No.2. The Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that from the date that the Writ Petitioner was appointed as Kho-Kho & Kabaddi Coach in the year 1989 until he was transferred to Alluri Sita Rama Raju Paderu District as Chief Coach on 07.07.2022, the Writ Petitioner had an ascending career; that since, after his regularisation in the year 1993, he was promoted as Chief Coach in the year 2000 and thereafter posted as District Sports Development Officer at various Districts before he was transferred to the Head Quarters of the Respondent No.2 at Vijayawada for the utilisation of his services coupled with long experience from 1989 to 2016. 13. Ld. Counsel would submit that even at the Head-Quarters from 2016 until the date of his transfer to Alluri Sita Rama Raju Paderu District as Grade-I Kho-Kho & Kabaddi Coach on 07.07.2022 he was performing his duties diligently and to the satisfaction of the Authority. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that except some averments in the Counter-Affidavit, the Respondent No.2 has not placed any adverse material against the Writ Petitioner till 07.07.2022 to substantiate its stand. 14. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that at 58 years of age, a person who has been appointed as a Sports Coach in the year 1989 cannot be expected to perform the very same function as field trainer for sports persons and that the Sports Authority ought to have utilised his long experience in the administration of training of the sports persons and also in sports administration, and he ought to have been continued at Head Quarter. 15. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has cited the following Judgments : i. Baldev Raj Chandha vs. Union of India and others ( (1980) 4 SCC 321 ) at Paragraph No.8; ii. S. Ramachandra Raju vs. State of Orissa ((1994) Supp (3) SCC 424) at Paragraph Nos.9, 10 & 11; iii. Rajesh Gupta vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others ( (2013) 3 SCC 514 at Paragraph Nos.29 & 31; iv. S. Ramachandra Raju vs. State of Orissa ((1994) Supp (3) SCC 424) at Paragraph Nos.9, 10 & 11; iii. Rajesh Gupta vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others ( (2013) 3 SCC 514 at Paragraph Nos.29 & 31; iv. State of Gujarat and another vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah ( (1999) 1 SCC 529 ) at Paragraph Nos.19, 20, 21, 26 and 28; and The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases is discussed herein below. 16. In Baldev Raj Chadha Vs. Union of India and Ors., ( (1980) 4 SCC 321 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the fact of unbriddled discretion exercised by the "executive" in the guise of "public interest" and the scope of Judicial Review by the Constitutional Courts during such incidents. Para – 8 of the above Judgment is extracted as under : “8.…………….The Administration, to be competent, must have servants who are not plagued by uncertainty about tomorrow. At the age of 50 when you have family responsibility and the sombre problems of one's own life's evening, your experience, accomplishments and fullness of fitness become an asset to the Administration, if and only if you are not harried or worried by “what will happen to me and my family?” “Where will I go if cashiered?” How will I survive when I am too old to be newly employed and too young to be superannuated?' ...................................................……………………………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. To constitutionalise the rule, we must so read it as to free it from the potential for the mischiefs we have just projected. The exercise of power must be bona fide and promote public interest. There is no demonstrable ground to infer mala fides here and the only infirmity alleged which deserves serious notice is as to whether the order has been made in public interest. The exercise of power must be bona fide and promote public interest. There is no demonstrable ground to infer mala fides here and the only infirmity alleged which deserves serious notice is as to whether the order has been made in public interest. 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. Judges cannot substitute their judgment for that of the Administrator but they are not absolved from the minimal review well settled in administrative law and founded on constitutional obligations. The limitations on judicial power in this area are well known and we are confined to an examination of the material merely to see whether a rational mind may conceivably be satisfied that the compulsory retirement of the officer concerned is necessary in public interest.” (emphasis supplied) 17. The Apex Court also held at Para – 16 as under : “16………….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. The order of compulsory retirement fails because vital material, relevant to the decision, has been ignored and obsolete material, less relevant to the decision, has influenced the decision. Any order which materially suffers from the blemish of overlooking or ignoring, wilfully 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.…………………………………….... .................................” (emphasis supplied) 18. In S. Ramachandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa, ((1994) Supp. 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.…………………………………….... .................................” (emphasis supplied) 18. In S. Ramachandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa, ((1994) Supp. (3) SCC 424), the Supreme Court has considered the issue of objectivity which is required in the preparation of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and also the requirement of informing an Employee about any adverse remarks in their ACRs. Whereas, in the instant case, the Competent Authority (Respondent No.2) has not referred to any ACRs of the Writ Petitioner which would have been the foundation for it to take a view that continuation of the Writ Petitioner's service is not beneficial and would not sub-serve the public interest any more. 19. In Rajesh Gupta Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors., ( (2013) 3 SCC 514 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of Compulsory Retirement which was based on one single Report against the Petitioner therein submitted by a High Power Committee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court frouned upon such a Report by holding: “……that the recommendation made by High-Powered Committee was indubitably arbitrary”. (emphasis supplied) 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held at Para Nos.29 & 31 in Rajesh Gupta’s Case (supra) as under : “29. The report also does not indicate that there is any irregularity in the bank accounts maintained by the appellant. The affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Jammu and Kashmir clearly shows that according to the Vigilance Organisation, three first information reports bearing Nos. 49 of 1991, 11 of 1995 and 63 of 1994 were registered by the State Vigilance Organisation against the appellant when he was posted as Executive Engineer (REW, Kathua). Upon investigation, all the FIRs were found to be “not proved”. However, recommendation was made to initiate departmental action against the officer. In spite of the aforesaid recommendation, it has not been disputed before us, that no departmental action was ever initiated against the appellant. In fact, after the completion of the investigation into the FIRs, the appellant was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 15-12-1996. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that there were no material before the High-Powered Committee to conclude that the officer possessed assets beyond his known source of income. 31. In fact, after the completion of the investigation into the FIRs, the appellant was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 15-12-1996. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that there were no material before the High-Powered Committee to conclude that the officer possessed assets beyond his known source of income. 31. In view of the aforesaid, the conclusion is inescapable, that the order passed by the State Government suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. The High Court erred in arriving at conclusions which were not borne out by the record produced before the High Court. In view of the settled law, it is not possible for us to uphold the judgments of the Single Judge as also of the Division Bench.” 21. In State of Gujarat and Anr. Vs. Suryakanth Chunilal Shah, ( (1999) 1 SCC 529 ), the Apex Court has analysed various Judgments rendered by it and held at Para No.26 as under : “26. Applying the principles laid down above to the instant case, what comes out is that in compulsorily retiring the respondent from service, the authorities themselves were uncertain about the action which was to be taken ultimately against him. In fact, there was hardly any material on the basis of which a bona fide opinion could have been formed that it would be in public interest to retire the respondent from service compulsorily. The material which was placed before the Review Committee has already been mentioned above. To repeat, the respondent was promoted in 1981; the character roll entries for the next two years were not available on record; there were no adverse entries in the respondent's character roll about his integrity; he was involved in two criminal cases, in one of which a final report was submitted while in the other, a charge-sheet was filed. Although there was no entry in his character roll that the respondent's integrity was doubtful, the Review Committee on its own, probably on the basis of the FIRs lodged against the respondent, formed the opinion that the respondent was a person of doubtful integrity..…………………………………………….. .............................……” (emphasis supplied) ISSUES: 22. Although there was no entry in his character roll that the respondent's integrity was doubtful, the Review Committee on its own, probably on the basis of the FIRs lodged against the respondent, formed the opinion that the respondent was a person of doubtful integrity..…………………………………………….. .............................……” (emphasis supplied) ISSUES: 22. In the above premise, the following issue falls for consideration before this Court : (a) Whether the decision taken by Respondent No.2 to compulsorily retire the Petitioner on a single ground of seeking continuous Medical Leave without there being any adverse remarks throughout the service career of the Writ Petitioner from 1989 till 07.07.2022 is sustainable in law? (b) Whether the Impugned Order is vitiated due to non-adherence of Sub-Rules (4) & (5) of Rule 25 of G.O.Ms.No.25 E.G & Y.S (YSS) Dept., dated 04.05.1993 ? ANALYSIS: 23. The following facts are undisputed and stand admitted : i. That the Writ Petitioner, having joined the service of Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh (SAAP) in the year 1989, got subsequently regularized and grew up in ranks ascending to the positions of Coach (Grade-I), District Coach Development Officer and Sports Officer Grade – I (At SAAP Head Quarters) and as Assistant Director (Technical and Administrative Officer) at SAAP Head Quarters; ii. Performance of the Writ Petitioner from 1989 upto 07.07.2022 (date on which the Order of "transfer on administrative grounds" was served) was diligent and steadfast while he was last working at the SAAP Head Office; iii. There are "no adverse remarks" against the Petitioner either with regard to his efficiency or integrity because no such adverse material is cited as a reason for compulsorily retiring the petitioner; iv. Neither the Impugned Order nor the Pleadings have made a mention of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). Neither of the Counsel have referred to even the existence of any practice and procedure of recording Annual Confidential Reports in this Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the Court can safely presume that there may not have been either a practice or a procedure of preparing ACRs for the Employees working in the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh; or, if at all there is any such practice prevalent, in so far as the present Writ Petitioner is concerned, the Court can safely presume that there are no adverse remarks against the Writ Petitioner throughout his career. v. The Review Committee contemplated under Sub-Rule (5) and the Review of the case of the Writ Petitioner under Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 25 has not been done in the instant case. 24. The facts which are noted hereinabove would indicate that until the Writ Petitioner was transferred on 07.07.2022 as Grade-I Kho-Kho & Kabaddi Coach to Alluri Sita Rama Raju Paderu District "on Administrative grounds", the Writ Petitioner has been serving in the Head Quarter at Vijayawada since 2016. From 2016 up to 07.07.2022, the Writ Petitioner worked at the Head Quarter at Vijayawada in different capacities namely as Sports Officer Grade-I and as Assistant Director (Technical) and Administrative Officer. The Medical Certificates would indicate that the ailment of the Writ Petitioner is of a chronic nature (Ischemic Heart Disease with other complications), but the fact is that he was still doing a ground job at the Head Quarters, from 2016 till 06.07.2022. He was able to perform his duties without any problem despite his heart condition and the nature of treatment that he has been undergoing. It has to be kept in mind that the date on which the Writ Petitioner was transferred i.e., on 07.07.2022, the Writ Petitioner is aged about 58 years 04 months and 17 days (as mentioned in the Impugned Order itself). 25. Analysis of several Judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the "objective that is sought to be achieved" by compulsorily retiring an employee, is twofold: i) to weed-out the deadwood; and, or ii) to weed-out, where the integrity of the employee is doubtful. The Impugned Order in this case would fall in the first category. The relevant portion of the Impugned Order bearing Proc.No.SAAP/A1/11024/2018, dated 18.10.2022 (Ex.P1) which indicates the reason for compulsorily retiring the Writ Petitioner is as under : “Sri P. Rama Krishna, Grade-I Coach Date of Birth 01.06.1964, aged 58 years 04 months 17 days as on today and continuous absence to duty by applying medical leave and extending medical leave for a long period is presumed that the individual does not fit for continuing in service in SAAP as a coach as he is suffering from IHD (Ischemic Heart Disease-Post PTCA, DM, HTN) and he requires continuous rest as per his own letters.” 26. The Official Respondents cited the above reason, for compulsorily retiring the Writ Petitioner by invoking Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 of G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 04.05.1993, Employment Generation and Youth Services (YSS) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, which reads as under : “25. RETIREMENT:- (1) An employee shall retire from the Service of SAAP: (a) on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he/she attains the age of 60 years (Sixty years) in the case of pre. 1-11-1987 entrants of office establishment and 58 (Fifty eight) years of age in the case of post 1-11-1987 entrants. Provided that in the case of Coaches continuance beyond 55 years of age shall be on the basis of year to year review upto 58 years by the appointing authority and on his/her being declared physically fit by the Medical Authority as specified by the SAAP: Provided further that an employee in last grade service post shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years: Provided also that in the case of person appointed on “Contract or on Honorarium basis as Adviser these Provisions about retirement age will not apply”. (b) on his/her being declared medically unfit for service by a Medical board to be designated by the Appointing Authority, in this behalf. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (1) above the Appointing Authority, if it is for opinion that it is in the interest of SAAP so to do, shall have the absolute right to retire any employee by giving him/her notice of not less than three month's pay and allowances in lieu of such notice after he/she has attained the age of 55 years. (3) An employee may, by giving notice in writing of not less than three month's retire from service after he/she attains the age of 55 years or on completion of 20 years of service. In the latter case the employee will have to seek prior approval of the Appointing Authority; Provided that in both cases it shall be open to the Appointing Authority to withhold permission to an employee under suspension who seeks to retire, under this clause; Provided further that the provisions of this clauses will not apply to persons appointed on contract or on honorarium basis. (4) The review of the case of each employee shall be taken up sufficiently in advance so as to give him/her the notice of intention to retire his/her from a particular date and he/she shall be informed three months in advance. (5) The review committee should be constituted with the Vice Chairman and Managing Director as the Chairman and the Director and Deputy Director as members.” 27. While the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has stoutly contended that the Writ Petitioner had a blemishless record even in terms of performance while he was posted at Head Quarter, knowing full well that the Writ Petitioner was at the fag end of his tenure of service, posting the Writ Petitioner at a remote place where the required medical facility is unavailable and assigned the duty of Grade-I Coach to train the sports persons, is only with an intent to deliberately cause the irreparable hardship to the Writ Petitioner. Learned Counsel would submit that merely because the Writ Petitioner was taken into service in the year 1989 as Coach, it does not mean that he can physically give the similar training that he had given during the earlier years of his career. The Writ Petitioner has not only secured lot of experience in training sports persons but at an age when he is close to 60 years, just about to superannuate, with a heart-condition, he could have been put to such duties which he could perform. Learned Counsel would also submit that even while he was transferred to a remote place as Grade-I Kho-Kho & Kabaddi Coach, the intention of the Writ Petitioner was only to join and perform the duty that is assigned to him, whereas his health condition, just at a time that he was transferred, did not permit him as is clearly evident from the medical advisory. Ld. Counsel would further submit that the solo incident of ill-health coupled with the medical advice "to take rest" cannot be the sole reason for invoking the Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 of G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 04.05.1993. 28. From the facts as projected and considered by this Court and from the analysis of the judgments cited above, this Court is of the opinion that an employee should have consistent history of non-performance reasonably spread over for a considerable period of time for compulsorily retiring him from service. 28. From the facts as projected and considered by this Court and from the analysis of the judgments cited above, this Court is of the opinion that an employee should have consistent history of non-performance reasonably spread over for a considerable period of time for compulsorily retiring him from service. In the present case, the sole incident of continued medical leave as per the medical advisory given by a Cardiologist holding the Degree of M.D, D.M (Doctor of Medicine), which is a "Super Speciality", is not in the teeth of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of Compulsory Retirement. The Respondents have invoked the statutory regulation to retire the Writ Petitioner compulsorily only on one single ground that the Writ Petitioner is suffering from Ischemic Heart Disease. The Respondents did not, even for a moment, thought about utilising the services and the long experience of the Writ Petitioner by allowing him to continue in the same Head Quarter. This is one alternative which the Respondents ought to have explored before taking the hasty decision to compulsorily retire the Writ Petitioner. 29. The nature of the job into which the Writ Petitioner was taken is certainly the job of a Coach. A Coach has to be on the field to physically train the sports persons. As the years pass by, the Coach gains experience in not only coaching the sports persons in their respective sports but would also gain experience in so far as the efficient administration of a particular "sport" is concerned. Unlike in the ordinary Government Employment where the employee would be at his desk from the beginning of his employment career until he/she superannuates, the job of a Coach is certainly different. It is different because the physical ability of a person, however healthy he or she may be, would be 'inversely proportional' to the progression in age. This is an inescapable natural process. Therefore, in such jobs where the employees are expected to perform only in terms of physical ability, this Court has to hold that for persons employed in sports organisations as Coaches, as the age progresses, they should be considered for utilizing their services and experience in the administration of a sport rather than expecting them to perform as Coach and physically train the sports persons in the manner in which they have done few decades ago. 30. 30. If the Respondents were of the view that the Employee is medically unfit, the least that the Respondents could have done is to refer the case of the Writ Petitioner to a Medical Board under Clause (b) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 25 to examine and report whether the Writ Petitioner is unfit to perform a job of any nature or that he would not be able to perform physical training but he will be able to do the ground job at either the Head Quarter or at any other place. Since the Respondents have not done this exercise, this Court is of the opinion that there is absence of objectivity in the impugned action by the Respondents. 31. The Rule 25 of G.O.Ms.No.25 E.G & Y.S (YSS) Dept., dated 04.05.1993 has been extracted in its entirety in Paragraph No.26 supra. Admittedly, the Respondent No.2 did not pitch the case of the Writ Petitioner under Clause (b) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 25 by constituting a Medical Board and subjecting the Petitioner for a Medical Review. The Respondent No.2 has invoked Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 for compulsorily retiring the Writ Petitioner on the sole ground that the Writ Petitioner has continuously applied for Medical Leave due to his sufferance from IHD (Ischemic Heart Disease, Post PTCA, DM, HTN) and that the Writ Petitioner requires rest as per the medical advice. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 25 mandates that the Review of the case of each employee be taken-up sufficiently in advance with a view to give Notice of intention to retire him/her from a particular date. Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 25 mandates the Respondent No.2 to constitute a Review Committee with the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director as the Chairman and the Director and Deputy Director as Members. 32. The Paragraph No.3 of the Impugned Order would indicate that the Vice Chairman & Managing Director has exercised the power under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 to compulsorily retire the Writ Petitioner. This makes it clear that the Review Committee has not been constituted so as to Review the case of the Writ Petitioner, and therefore, it is apparent that the Vice Chairman & Managing Director, as an individual, has subjectively decided to invoke Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 of G.O.Ms.No.25 E.G & Y.S (YSS) Dept., dated 04.05.1993. This makes it clear that the Review Committee has not been constituted so as to Review the case of the Writ Petitioner, and therefore, it is apparent that the Vice Chairman & Managing Director, as an individual, has subjectively decided to invoke Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 of G.O.Ms.No.25 E.G & Y.S (YSS) Dept., dated 04.05.1993. The Counter-Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.2 dated 28.10.2022 is also bereft of any detail as regards the constitution of a Review Committee for Reviewing the case of the Petitioner. This gives credence to the allegation made by the Writ Petitioner that the decision taken by the Respondent No.2 is not based on a recommendation of a Review Committee, but it is only at the sole subjective discretion of the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the Respondent No.2 in his individual capacity. This approach is impermissible in law. Therefore, this Court holds that the Impugned Order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and irrationality. 33. In view of the findings of this Court that the power vested under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 has been wrongly invoked by the Respondent No.2 while citing the heart ailment as a reason for doing so, this Court is constrained to refer to a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. S.R. Venkataraman vs. Union of India & Anr. ( (1979) 2 SCC 491 ). The facts in the case dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are very much identical to the facts in the present Writ Petition. The appointing authority has prematurely retired the Appellant therein under the guise of "public interest". In the said case, after examining the Judgments in Shearer vs. Shields ((1914) AC 808, 813); Pilling vs. Abergele Urban District Council ((1950) 1 KB 636 : (1950) All ER 76); and The Queen on the Prosecution of Richard Westbrook vs. Vestry of St. Pancras ((1890) 24 Q BD 371), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at Paragraph Nos.8 & 9 therein as under : “8. We are in agreement with this view. It is equally true that there will be an error of fact when a public body is prompted by a mistaken belief in the existence of a non-existing fact or circumstance. Pancras ((1890) 24 Q BD 371), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at Paragraph Nos.8 & 9 therein as under : “8. We are in agreement with this view. It is equally true that there will be an error of fact when a public body is prompted by a mistaken belief in the existence of a non-existing fact or circumstance. This is so clearly unreasonable that what is done under such a mistaken belief might almost be said to have been done in bad faith; and in actual experience, and as things go these may well be said to run into one another. 9. The influence of extraneous matters will be undoubted where the authority making the order has admitted their influence. It will therefore be a gross abuse of legal power to punish a person or destroy her service career in a manner not warranted by law by putting a rule which makes a useful provision for the premature retirement of government servants only in the “public interest”. An administrative order which is based on reasons of fact which do not exist must therefore be held to be infected with an abuse of power.” (emphasis supplied) CONCLUSIONS: 34. The above discussion would lead to the following conclusions : i. The Annual Confidential Reports have not been produced. Hence, there is no previous history against the Writ Petitioner with regard to deficiency or short coming in the work during his entire career; ii. The illness suffered by the Writ Petitioner did not disable him from doing administrative work, as he had already been working at the Headquarters until 07.07.2022 without any complaint; iii. The medical advice given to the Writ Petitioner "to take rest" is by a Cardiologist possessing the qualification of Super Speciality (D.M.-Doctorate of Medicine), which cannot be ignored, and therefore, the Writ Petitioner should have been considered for soft job in the alternative (administrative in nature). This is in the light of the fact that the medical advice to deal with heart condition cannot be taken lightly by the patients; iv. This is in the light of the fact that the medical advice to deal with heart condition cannot be taken lightly by the patients; iv. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the physical ability is "inversely proportional" to the advancement in age; and this is a relevant factor to be considered in respect of persons employed in the physical-training activities; and v. The temporary illness as indicated by the Writ Petitioner is an isolated incident, and therefore, Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 of G.O.Ms.No.25, Employment Generation and Youth Services (YSS) Department, dated 04.05.1993 cannot be applied for compulsorily retiring the Writ Petitioner. Hence, compulsorily retiring the Writ Petitioner by invoking Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 of G.O.Ms.No.25, Employment Generation and Youth Services (YSS) Department, dated 04.05.1993 is arbitrary, irrational and illegal, and therefore, cannot stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently this Court holds that the power exercised by the Respondent No.2 under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 25 in "colourable" in nature. 35. In view of the above mentioned conclusions, the Writ Petitioner succeeds. The Writ Petition is allowed. The Impugned Order bearing Proceedings No.SAAP/A1/11024/ 2018, dated 18.10.2022 (Ex.P.1) is set aside on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petitioner shall be reinstated into service within two weeks from today. He shall also be paid the arrears of salary from the date of the Impugned Order i.e., from 18.10.2022 till the date of joining in service. No order as to costs. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this Order.