ORDER

After having heard and considered the arguments urged on behalf of the parties we are of the view, for reasons which we shall set out later on, that all the three appeals fail and should be dismissed. Order accordingly. The appellant will pay to the respondents the costs of these appeals. Such costs to be one set of costs.

Judgment

Shelat, J. On August 14, 1970 we pronounced our order dismissing these three appeals with costs stating at the time that our reasons for the same would follow. The order was pronounced at the request of the appellant who desired that we should do so before August 15, 1970 when he was completing 58 years of his age. Accordingly we are now setting out the reasons for the said order.

The three appeals, by certificate, question the validity of two confidential reports for the years 1964 and 1965 made against the appellant by the reporting and the reviewing officers in the Central Water and Power Commission (Power Wing) and the order dated May 12, 1967 by which the appellant was compulsorily retired on his attaining the age of 55 years.

The appellant, an electrical engineer, began his career in the Simla Electricity Supply Undertaking and worked there from 1934 to 1949. In 1949, he was appointed as a Project Officer in the Central Electricity Commission, now designated the Central Water and Power Commission (Power Wing). He was confirmed in that post in 1950 and later on was promoted to the post of a director, in which post he was working since 1955. He was confirmed in that post by an order, dated April 15, 1963 with retrospective effect from August 5, 1960.

By a communication dated September 16, 1965 he was informed of an adverse entry in the annual confidential report for the year 1964. The entry reads as follows:

"... A Problem Director in that it falls to the inevitable lot of some member to have him under Ms charge and manage as far as practicable. . ."

"... I agree with the above even though the officer is intelligent and capable of good work if he wishes to apply himself wholeheartedly."

By another communication dated July 7, 1966 the appellant was informed that an adverse entry had been made in his confidential report also for the year 1965. That entry reads as follows :

"His work during the year was below the average, considering his senior position in the Directors Cadre. Shri Butail can do good work if he like(s) to do so."

On receiving these communications the appellant made representations in which he asked for specific instances on which adverse opinions about him had been recorded. These representations were, however, rejected. In the meantime, the question of filling in the post of Director (Selection Grade)/Deputy Chief Engineer arose. According to the appellant, this post as also certain other higher posts including that of a member were promotion posts. Being the only permanent director amongst the candidates, he was the seniormost of them all and claimed that he was for that reason entitled to be promoted. Both in 1964 and 1965, however, he was overlooked by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the Union Public Service Commission.

On May 12, 1967, he was served with an order compulsorily retiring him from service with effect from August 15, 1967 on completion of the age of 55 years. The order was made under r. 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules made under Art. 309 of the Constitution.

The appellant filed three writ petitions Nos. 608 and 607 of 1966 and 1550 of 1967 in the High Court of Punjab challenging the validity of the said entries and the said order of compulsory retirement and praying that the said two entries should be expunged and proper entries made, that the orders declaring him unfit for promotion and the said order of compulsory retirement should be quashed. The High Court dismissed all the writ petitions. Hence these appeals.

The appellant contended (i) that the said two confidential reports were contrary to the rules inasmuch as they did not set out specific instances ju