Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) By way of the instant writ petition a challenge has been laid to the order dated 24th April, 2002 by which the Chairman, RSRTC, Jaipur in exercise of the right conferred by regulation 57(a)(i) of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred in short 'Regulations of 1965') has compulsorily retired the petitioner from the post of Assistant Accounts Officer.
(2.) Mr. S.C. Gupta counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 24th April, 2002 and submitted that the order dated 24th April, 2002 compulsorily retiring the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and suffers from malafides and further submitted that adverse entries record in the service record of the petitioner, which the Screening Committee has taken into consideration have been largely set aside by the civil courts. Counsel submits that the meeting of the Screening Committee held on 4th December, 2001 did not record its opinion that the petitioner's compulsory retirement was necessary to obviate the adverse effects of his further employment with the Corporation till his superannuation at the age of 60 years. Counsel submits that the test of satisfaction of the employer that the continuation of an employee would be adverse in the interest of employer is fundamental to invoke the powers to compulsory retire. In support of his argument, the counsel has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Narayan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1337/2003 decided on 13th March, 2007) . Counsel has further relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of RSRTC v. Prem Chand Chouhan (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (writ) No. 880/2006; decided on 25th January, 2007) .
(3.) Counsel further submitted that Narayan Singh (petitioner in aforementioned writ petition No. 1337/2003 decided on 13/3/2007) was also compulsorily retired by the same Screening Committee and his order of compulsory retirement has been set aside by this Court. Counsel submits that principle of law and the test enunciated on which writ petition filed by the Narayan Singh was allowed by this Court applies with equal force to the case of the petitioner as the extent of consideration prior to compulsory retirement in the case of the petitioner was identical to the extent of consideration in the case of Narayan Singh. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is at par with that of Narayan Singh (supra).;