1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 2.6.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 19.6.2000 (Annex. 3) passed by the respondent No. 1 Principal Chief Conversator of Forests, Rajasthan, Jaipur by which under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1996"), the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service in public interest with effect from the date of receipt of that order, be quashed and set aside.

2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:

The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of LDC on 27.7.1965 and thereafter, he was selected for the post of Forester with effect from 26.5.1971. Thereafter, on 9.1.1987, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger by the order of Chief Conservator of Forests. However, later-on, the post of Deputy Ranger was re-designated as Ranger Gr. II with effect from 1.4.1998 and, therefore, the petitioner came to be designated as Ranger Gr. II and he was working as such since then.
The case of the petitioner is that he has discharged his duties since initial appointment to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities and he had carried out the work sincerely. However, in the year 1975, a joint enquiry was held against the petitioner and he was given censure in the said enquiry and except that there was no such adverse remarks ever recorded in his service record nor any such adverse remarks were communicated to him.The further case of the petitioner is that between the period running from 1.4.1988 to 19.6.2000, only in the ACRs of two years i.e. 1993-94 and 1996-97, adverse remarks were made and the same were communicated to him. According to the petitioner, the adverse remarks made in his ACR for the year 1993-94 were communicated to him in the year 1995 and against the said adverse remarks, he made a detailed representation, but the same has not been decided so far and, therefore, even these adverse remarks could not be taken into consideration for passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner.The further case of the petitioner is that the adverse remarks made in his ACR for the year 1996-97 that he remained absent from office for one day were also communicated to him and against the said adverse remarks, he also filed a representation and according to the petitioner, such advese remarks cannot be said to be sufficient for passing an order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner.Thus, it was submitted by the petitioner that there was no adverse material for passing an order of compulsory retirement against him.The further case of the petitioner is that Rule 53(1) of the Rules of 1996 was amended on 1.12.1999 and in the amended Rule 53(1), the scope of zone of consideration for making compulsory retirement was extended and sicne the petitioner was compulsorily retired only on account of public interest and other aspects were not considered, therefore, from this point of view also, the impugned order of compulsory retirement passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained.Apart from this, according to the petitioner, the impugned order Annex. 3 dated 19.6.2000 was passed in violation of the directives given in the Circular dated 21.4.2000 (Annex. 1). Hence, this writ petition with the prayer as stated above.A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and one of the preliminary objections taken by the respondents was that the impugned order Annex. 3 was passed on 19.6.2000 and the same has been challenged by filing this writ petition on 2.6.2001 and therefore, there was delay, which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner and thus, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.

3. Apart from this, it