- (1.) The appellant at the relevant moment of time was working in the office of the Block Development Officer, Hathras. Pursuant to the Government Order dated 06.07.2017, the exercise of compulsory retirement was undertaken. A chart of service record of the appellant-petitioner was placed for consideration before the Screening Committee in which mid-term adverse entry for the years 2006-07, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2014-15 was recorded. Based on these mid-term entries, the Screening Committee recommended that since there are more than three adverse entries in the last ten years, the appellant be compulsory retired. This recommendation was accepted and the appellant-petitioner was compulsory retired by an order dated 31.07.2017. The appellant-petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by an order dated 05.12.2017. The appellant, being aggrieved, has filed the present Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court
(2.) The writ petition was dismissed without calling for a counter affidavit and it was decided on the basis of the instruction received by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit accompanying the memo of the special appeal it has been contended that the annual entries of the aforesaid years were in favour of the appellant and thus mid-term entries had been superseded by the annual entries that were given, in favour of the appellant. It was, thus, contended that the Screening Committee has wrongly considered the mid-term entries for the period for which annual entries had been recorded. The Screening Committee ought to have considered the annual entries only.
(3.) This fact has been mentioned in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in this appeal. The Court directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit. The contents of paragraph 9 of the affidavit in the special appeal have not been denied in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the State. These facts are also admitted as per chart of the respondents, which they had produced before the learned Single Judge, at page no.127 of the paper book.;