( 1 ) PETITIONER an Assistant Examiner Local Funds Account serving under the Director of Accounts and Treasuries was served with a notice dated 26/08/1977 informing that he should he compulsorily retired from the Government service with effect from 30/11/1977 under the provisions of Rule 161 Bombay Civil Services Rules (to be referred to as B. C. S. R.) and accordingly was made to retire from the service on 30/11/1977 as he had attained the age of 55 years. Petitioner made a representation against the order of retirement to the higher authorities but that was also rejected by the Government on 24/11/1977 Petitioner has challenged the order of premature retirement at the age of 55 years on various grounds and by this writ has prayed for declaring the order illegal and bad and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 Constitution of India. According to the petitioner he should have been given opportunity to serve in the lower grade of Class II Accounts Officer and as he was not given that opportunity the order by the Competent Authority is mala fide. According to the petitioners that order without giving him opportunity to work as Class II Officer is an outcome of malice against the petitioner by the authorities. Petitioner also contended that he is compulsorily made to retire as a part of the campaign of removing all the promotes who had attained the position of Class I Officer and replacing the posts by direct recruits. The catenation of the petitioner is that the higher authorities tried to remove the petitioner only because the petitioner was occupying the position as the Class I Officer as a promote and as such there was no ground much less the reason in the public interest for the premature retirement from the service. The petitioner also contended that he was promoted from Class II to Class I Junior Duty Officer post in the Accounts Service and was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar and that establishes his efficiency to hold the post. It is also contended that the Competent Authority issuing the notice has not formed the requisite opinion to the effect that the petitioner should be retired in the public interest but the decision is based on collateral grounds and as such the action of the Government retiring the petitioner is mala fide. arbitrary and on collateral grounds and therefore bad and illegal. Petitioner also states that compulsorily retiring him from the service without giving him the opportunity to serve in the lower grade offends the provision of Arts. 14 and 16. Constitution of India as it amounts to discrimination and not affording the opportunity to serve. Petitioner also contended that other tea officers belonging to the said cadre who were the promotees were also served with the notice of premature retirement with an ulterior motive to see that no promotee may occupy Class I post.

( 2 ) THE respondent-State has asserted the absolute power of the Government to retire the petitioner in the public interest as provided in Rule 161 B. C. S. R. and also contended that the decision to retire the petitioner was taken on the basis of the confidential reports and also as a result of the review of his overall performance during the last 10 years by the Review Committee constituted for the purpose. According to the respondents the petitioner was considered as below average standard and therefore it was felt his retention in the service in the lower grade i. e. Class II would have not served the purpose and therefore he was not offered the lower post. The allegation about the campaign to remove the Class I promotee officers is also denied in the affidavit filed by Shri J. P. Mehta Under Secretary to the Government Finance Department. Shri Mehta has deposed that the criteria for allowing the Government servant to cross Efficiency Bar are different from that for continuing in service beyond the age of 50-55 years. The decision was taken on the basis of the review of the overall performance of the petitioner durin