R S RAIZADA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 10th June, 1968, the State Government passed the following order:-

(2.) THE petitioner alleges that in 1967, the Inspector General of Registration transferred the petitioner from Kanpur to Landsdown. The hill-stations did not suit the health of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Minister concerned. The Minister suggested that the petitioner's transfer to Landsdown would be reconsi dered and he should be given some station on the plains. But, in spite of that, the Inspector General maintained his order. The petitioner's allegation is that the peti tioner's having approached the Minister an noyed the Inspector General, as a result whereof the impugned order of compulsory retirement has been passed.

(3.) THE next point taken by the learned Counsel was that Note 1 to Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Article authorises the compulsory re tirement of a Government servant after he has attained the age of 55 years or after completing 25 years of qualifying service, if the appointing authority is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. It was urged that the public interest was a vague con cept. It did not confer any guidance, and the conferment of an unguided and arbitrary discretion was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This precise point was negatived by a Full Bench of this Court in Abdul Ahad v. Inspector General of Police, AIR 1965 All 142 (FB). It was held that Article 465 does not infringe Article 16 of the Constitution. This Full Bench decision is binding on me. Moreover, a similar Rule for compulsory retirement came up for con sideration before the Supreme Court. In T. G. Shivacharana v. State of Mysore, AIR 1965 SC 280. Rule 285 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules authorised the Government to retire a Government servant compulsorily if it was necessary to do so in the public interest. It was held that this Rule did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel re lied upon an unreported decision of a Single Judge of this Court, wherein it was held that Article 465 violated Article 16 of the Constitution. In view of the Full Bench decision of this very Article, the contrary decision of a Single Judge cannot be pre-i If erred.