O.P. GUPTA Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, who was holding the post of Professor of Pathology in Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner was compulsorily retired from service under Sub -rule (2) of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') by the order of the State Government dated October 17, 1975. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of his compulsory retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while compulsorily retiring the petitioner four adverse entries made in his confidential record were taken into consideration by the Screening Committee. Two of the aforesaid four entries related to the year 1966 -67 and 1967 -68. Learned counsel contended that those entries should not have been taken into consideration because after the said entries were made, the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Professor of Pathology. In para 2 of the writ petition it has been mentioned that the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Professor of Pathology with effect from June 3, 1967 and as such it does appear that the entry relating to the year 1967 -68 could not have been made prior to his confirmation Of course, the entry relating to the year 1966 -67 was in respect of the period prior to the confirmation of the petitioner on the post of Professor of Pathology.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions in Shri J.R. Jain V. Union of India and others 1973 (2) SLR 309, Shri Shadi Lal Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Gurgaon and ors 1974 (1) SLR 217 and the State of Punjab Vs. Dewan Chuni Lal 1970 SLR 375 in support of his contention that adverse entries made in the service record prior to the order of confirmation should not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of compulsory retirement. So far as the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dewan Chuni Lal's case 1970 SLR 375 and the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shadilal's case 1974 (1) SLR 217 are concerned, it may be observed that they do not relate to the matter of compulsory retirement, but to the right of consideration for promotion under Article 16 of the Constitution and as such they are not applicable to the facts of the present case. So far as compulsory retirement is concerned, it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India V. J.N. Sinha and another : AIR 1971 SC 40 that it is not a punishment and no vested right of a Government servant is taken away by compulsorily retiring him from service after the completion of a specified period of service or on attaining a specified age. So far as the decision of the Delhi High Court in J.R. Jain's case 1973 (2) SLR 309 I have respectfully disagreed with the view taken in that case while deciding S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 1854 of 1972 (Prem Chand Sanghi Vs. The State of Rajasthan and others decided on May 16, 1975 and have also given detailed reasons in the judgment of the aforesaid case for taking a different view from that taken by the Delhi High Court in J.R. Jain's case 1973 (2) SLR 309. It was held in Prem Chand Sanghi's case:

(3.) The other submission of the learned counsel is that the adverse entry relating to the year 1971 -72 could not be taken into consideration as a representation in respect of that entry is still pending with the State Government. I am unable to agree with this contention as well of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Until and unless the concerned adverse entry was not expunged, the Screening Committee and the State Government were entitled to take the same into consideration. Moreover, even on the basis of the adverse entries relating to the years 1968 -67 and 1967 -68, the Screening Committee and the State Government were entitled to come to the conclusion that the efficiency of the petitioner was impaired or that the petitioner was no longer remained efficient for continuing in Government service.