Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—This petition is made under Article 226 by a Class IV employee in the judgeship of Bareilly. He is aggrieved by the order of the District Judge dated 30.4.2007 whereby he has been compulsorily retired under the U.P. Fundamental Rules 56-C.

2. The present dispute arose in the following circumstances :

The petitioner was initially appointed on 27th April, 1982 as a sweeper at District Court Judgeship, Bareilly. In the Service Record his date of birth is recorded 1956. A Screening Committee comprising of District Judge as its Chairman, Special Judge, EC Act and Additional District Judge was constituted on 27.6.2006 to scrutinized the service records of those Class III and IV employees who had completed the age of 50 years of service, to find out their suitability and utility in service of the judgeship. The Screening Committee was constituted in terms of Government Order dated 26.10.1985 and other relevant order issued from time to time.

The aforesaid Screening Committee had scrutinized the entire service record of the petitioner and other employees. The Committee had submitted its report on 28.2.2007 wherein it had recommended that the petitioner should not be continued in service in the public interest and he should be compulsorily retired. The report of Screening Committee was accepted by the then District Judge Bareilly. Consequent upon, he issued the impugned order under the U.P. Fundamental Rules 56-C of the Financial Hand Book Vol.II (Part II to IV).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Vijay Gautam has submitted that the order of the compulsory retirement passed by the District Judge is mala fide, arbitrary, is based on no evidence and the Screening Committee has relied on the stale Entries of the petitioner therefore the order is vitiated. Sri Gautam has further urged that there was no material against the petitioner and whatever material was it was of remote past and the doctrine of washed-off could be attracted in the present case as there was no adverse entry against the petitioner in the recent past. He has further urged that without any application of mind the impugned order has been passed. Sri Gautam has relied on some of the judgment of the Supreme Court and this Court.

4. The U.P. Fundamental Rules 56-C and Explanation (2) (a), (b), and (c) provides that nothing in the Rule may be interpreted in the way to exclude from consideration any entry relating to any period. The use of the word “nothing herein contained shall be construed to exclude from consideration” as a significant meaning it clearly lays down that the exclusion thus is prohibited in terms of the Rule and it does not confine to a particular period even an employee has cross Efficiency Bar or he has been promoted on a higher post. The aforesaid words also make it amply clear that while determining the suitability of the employee to keep in the service his entire service record can be scanned.

5. The Supreme Court in its leading case on the issue in Shyam Lal v. State of U.P., (1955)1 SCR 26, has held that the order of compulsory retirement does not attach any stigma nor it is a punishment. The Supreme Court observed thus :

“There is no such element of charge or imputation in the case of compulsory retirement. The two requirements for compulsory retirement are that the officer has completed twenty-five years’ service and that it is in the public interest to dispense with his further services. It is true that this power of compulsory retirement may be used when the authority exercising this power cannot substantiate the misconduct which may be the real cause for taking the action but what is important to note is that the directions in the last sentence in Note 1 to Article 465-A make it abundantly clear that an imputation or charge is not in terms made a condition for the exercise of the power. In other words, a compulsory retirement has no stigma or implication of misbehaviour or incapacity.”

The aforesaid case wa