K.N.Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of the State Government dated September 30, 1973, retiring the petitioner compulsorily from service.
(2.) THE petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Registrar, Co operative Societies. After the petitioner had crossed the age of 50 years the State Government by its order dated September 30, 1973, retired him compulsorily from service in exercise of its power under Article 465, Note I of the Civil Services Regulations. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order on the ground that there was no material before the State Government to form the requisite opi nion that his services were not required in public interest. Allega tions of mala fide have also been made against Sri H.S. Haq, Secre tary, Co- operative Department, U.P., Lucknow. The allegations of mala fide have been denied by Sri Haq in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The petitioner has filed to prove the allegations of mala fides. The allegation that there was no material against the petitioner or that the decision to retire him was taken arbitrarily is denied by the respondent. In the counter-affidavit of the State Government it has been asserted that the record of the petitioner's service was not satisfactory, the decision to retire the petitioner compulsorily was taken after considering his record of service. The petitioner had been awarded adverse entries in 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. The petitioner on the other hand has assert ed that he was due to cross the efficiency bar on August 6, 1970, but as he had filed a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench, the ques tion of his crossing the efficiency bar was kept pending and it was only by the order dated July 20, 1973, that he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar.
(3.) IT is urged that since the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar on July 20, 1973, the adverse entries if any prior to that date stood waived, and those adverse entries could not be taken into account in assessing the petitioner's performance in ser vice while considering the question of his retention in service. In paragraph 22 of the counter- affidavit of S. Pant filed on behalf of the State Government it has been stated that the petitioner was allowed to cross efficiency bar by its order dated July 20, 1973 with effect from August 26, 1966 and while allowing the petitioner to cross efficiency bar only those entries were taken into account which had been award ed to him prior to 1966 and that none of the entries which were awarded after 1966 had been taken into account in allowing the peti tioner to cross his efficiency bar. The petitioner's overall perform ance and record of service was considered in taking the impugned de cision. He had earned adverse entries in the years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 which were taken into account.;