1. - By instant writ petition the State has challenged validity of judgment dated 28.7.1994 (Annexure-3) passed by Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby order dated 16.8.1991 of the petitioner passed in exercise of powers u/R. 244(2) of Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1951 ("RSR") retiring respondent No.2 compulsorily, has been set-aside with the direction that respondent No.2 will be entitled to all consequential benefits including Ray & allowances.

2. Facts, in brief, are the Inderkumar Singh ("respondent No.2") initially joined service as Agri. Extension Officer on ad hoc basis on 4.7.1958 in Rajasthan Agriculture Service (the Service") and was selected by RPSC in 1959. He was further promoted in Group C of the Service on ad hoc basis and then on recommendation of DPC w.e.f. 10.9.1974 and thereafter as Deputy Director (Agr.) in November, 1985 and on the recommendation of review DPC on 17.3.1988 against vacancy of the year 1984-85 on the basis of merit in Group A Sec. II. While holding the post of Dy. Director (Grade A) he was compulsorily retired from service u/R. 244(2) of RSR vide order dated 16.8.1991, which was challenged by respondent No.2 by filing Appeal No.450/1991 before Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, ("Tribunal"). The State (petitioner) filed reply to the appeal. The Tribunal after examining material on record, has recorded finding that in the facts of present case, order of compulsory retirement against respondent No.2 cannot be said to be in consonance with Rule 244 (2) of RSR and accordingly the same was set-aside and directed the State Government to grant him all consequential benefits. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Shri B.K. Sharma, Dy. Government Advocate for the State (petitioner) has urged that complete service record of respondent No.2 was duly considered by screening committee so also by review committee and on their recommendations, final decision was taken for his compulsory retirement under Rule 244(2) of RSR and when the high power committee took decision, ordinarily such a decision was not required to be interfered unless material which was looked into for taking decision either does not exist or it was reviewed or revised at later stage. According to him, the Tribunal has exceeded in its jurisdiction while interfering with administrative decision of the State Government taken for compulsory retirement of respondent Officer being dead wood and whose retention in Government service was of no use to the public at large.

4. Shri Sharma further urged that the committee constituted by State Government has examined over all efficiency of respondent No.2 and after considering his record of service, the State Government finally concurred with final opinion of the high power committee that retention of respondent No.2 is not in public interest and consequently took decision for his compulsory retirement. Shri Sharma also urged that the Committee pointed out in its report that there were adverse remarks in APAR of 1987-88 where his integrality was recorded to be doubtful; and this solitary adverse remark was sufficient for the committee to take decision for compulsory retirement and in such circumstances, finding recorded by the Tribunal is not legally sustainable, and requires interference by this Court.

5. Shri Sharma further submitted that it is a prerogative of the State Government and its subjective satisfaction depending on several consideration based on entire service record, was not ordinarily required to be interfered or disturbed unless the Tribunal could have arrived at a conclusion that the satisfaction recorded by the State Government is not supported by material on record, which is not the situation in present case and contrarily, sufficient material was available on record which was taken note of the committee constituted by State Government while taking decision with regard to compulsory retirement of respondent No.2, and according to him, interf