Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) Sri Nanak Saran Srivastava (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was serving as superintendent in the Legislative Council Secretariat in February, 1968 His date of birth as recorded in his service hook is 13-2-1913. Sri Darbari Lal Sharma, the then Chairman of the Legislative Council issued a notice to the petitioner which reads:- "In exercise of the powers under paragraph (i) of the first proviso to Cl. (a) of Fundamental Rule 56, contained in a Financial Hand Book Volume II, Parts II and IV as amended from time to time. I, Darbari Lal Sharma, Chairman, Legislative Council. U. P being the appointing authority in respect of the Post and grade held by you. hereby give notice requiring you Shri Nanak Saran Srivestava, Superintendent, Legislative Council Secretariat to retire from service on your attaining the age of 55 years i. e. on February 12, 1968 afternoon. Sd/- Darhari Lal Sharma, Chairman, Legislative Council, Uttar Pradesh." This notice has been challenged in this writ petition and it has been prayed that writ of certiorari be issued to quash it and a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents (i) State of Uttar Pradesh, (ii) Chairman, Legislaiive Council, and (iii) Sri Darbari Lal Sharma not to implement the notice mentioned above and not to retire the petitioner in pursuance of that notification, and further to treat the petitioner as continuing in service till 12-2-1971. There is also the usual prayer for the issue of any other writ, order or direction as this Court may in the circumstances of the case deem fit and proper to issue.
(2.) Sri Darbari Lal Sharma has since died and no one has been impleaded in his place.
(3.) We have heard Sri S.D. Misra for the petitioner and Sri Umesh Chandra learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Sri S.D. Misra has made the following three submissions before us: (i) That the notice mentioned above is bad because the Chairman of the Legislative Council (in the present case Sri Darbari Lal Sharma) had neither appointed nor confirmed the petitioner as Superintendent in the Legislative Council Secretariate and inasmuch as Fundamental Rule 56 gives the option of retiring a Government servant after he attains the age of 55 years to the appointing authority, the petitioner could have been retired only by a notice issued or by an order passed by the Secretary Legislature who had appointed him and confirmed on the post of Superintendent, Legislative Council. (ii) That Sri Darbari Lal Sharma issued the notice mentioned above mala fide because he wanted to provide some other person in the place of the petitioner. (iii) That there has been a discrimination practised by the Chairman against the petitioner in so far as people with much worse character rolls (it is contended that the petitioner's character roll is outstanding) have been allowed to continue after attaining the age of 55 years and the petitioner has been made to retire. We proceed to consider the submissions serially.;