Ritu Bahri, J. - (1.) By way of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 07.10.1994 (Annexure P14), whereby he has been retired after attaining the age of 55 years.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer and thereafter, was promoted as Sub Divisional Engineer on regular basis on 11.04.1985. He was conveyed adverse remarks in his four annual confidential reports and his representations against those remarks were rejected as under: - - "(i) First time annual confidential report for the year 1983 -84 was conveyed to the petitioner, in which his overall assessment was 'average.'. His representation against the aforesaid remarks was rejected vide Annexure P -1. (ii) In his annual confidential report for the year 1988 -89, overall assessment of the petitioner was made 'average.' His representation against the said remarks was rejected vide letter (Annexure P -4). (iii) He was again conveyed adverse remarks in his annual confidential report for the year 1989 -90 vide Annexure P -5. His representation against such remarks was rejected vide Annexure P -6. (iv) Finally, the petitioner was conveyed the adverse remarks in his annual confidential report for the year 1990 -91 vide Annexure P -7, against which, he made a representation, which was rejected vide order (Annexure P -9)."
(3.) As per Haryana Government instructions dated 16.08.1983 (Annexure P -11), only those employees be retained in service after the age of 55 years, who have 70% good reports in last 10 years and those who have not 70% good reports in the last 10 years, be compulsorily retired from service. These instructions were challenged before this Court on the ground that under rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part -I, an employee can be compulsorily retired in public interest and the object of public interest can be achieved by retiring an employee, who has become deadwood and have lost all the utility for the department. This Court in K.K. Vaid v/s. State of Haryana, : 1990 (1) SLR 1, quashed the above instructions by considering the same as against the provisions of Rule 3.26 of SCR. Against this judgment, State of Haryana filed SLP No. 1641 of 1990, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21.02.1990.;