S.K. Dhajn, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner on or before 08.01.1976 was working as a Divisional Head Clerk in the Public Works Department, U.P. Government. On that date an order compulsorily retiring him from service was passed. He preferred a Claim petition before the Public Service Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow against the said order. This petition has been rejected, hence this petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE State Government took the action of compulsorily retiring the Petitioner under the Fundamental Rule 5 (c). This provision and the explanation thereto were inserted by the U.P. Fundamental Rule 56 (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act of 1975). The explanation (1) and (2) read as follows: (1) The decision of the appointing authority under Clause (c) to require the Government servant to retire as specified therein shall be taken it is appeals to the said authority to be in the public interest, but nothing therein contained shall be construed to require any recital, in the order, of such decision having been taken in the public interest. (2) Every such decision shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been in the public interest ". The Public Service Tribunal repelled the contention made before it on behalf of the Petitioner that an order of compulsory retirement had not been passed in the public interest in the following words: In the end the Petitioner submitted that his premature retirement was not in public interest. The question whether advance retirement of particular officer is in public interest is a matter for the dismissing authority to decide. We have no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over such decision of the competent authority. We can interfere with such finding only it is arrived at arbitrarily, but such is not the case here. A perusal of the counter -affidavit shows that overall performance of the Petitioner was not good and, therefore, his premature retirement was considered necessary in public interest ".
(3.) IT is clear that the afore -quoted opinion was expressed by the Public Service Tribunal keeping in view the explanations (1) and (2) to Rule 56 (c) as then stood.;