JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - The petitioner challenges the order of compulsory retirement dated 17.01.2020.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that in the month of July, 1995, he was appointed as Patwari (the Revenue Sub Inspector). Since the date of his appointment, he has been discharging his duties efficiently. As per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules prevalent and applicable, the promotional post of Patwari is Kanoongo (Revenue Inspector). On 07.11.2019, the petitioner was directed to join training of Kanoongo. He was relieved by the District Magistrate on 18.11.2019 for joining the training, which he joined at the Training Centre, Almora. The training was for a period of three months, which was to come to an end on 15.02.2020.

3. It is further the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the Government Order dated 20.02.2020 and 24.07.2019, a Screening Committee was constituted, which on 18.11.2019, in paragraph 8 of its report, considered the case of the petitioner and recommended that the petitioner should not be compulsorily retired and should be allowed to continue beyond 50 years. But again, suddenly, on 17.01.2020, the petitioner was compulsorily retired without giving him any notice.

4. State filed its counter affidavit. The factual aspects have not been denied. According to the counter affidavit of the State, pursuant to the Government Order, on 10.01.2020, the Screening Committee in its meeting considered the service record of the petitioner. There were various adverse entries of the years 1997-1998, 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2007-2008 and also considered the report dated 10.01.2020 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narendra Nagar with regard to the explanation sought from the petitioner and made recommendation that the petitioner be compulsorily retired. Pursuant to which, on 17.01.2020, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 07.11.2019, the petitioner was recommended for training for his promotion and he joined the training. For compulsory retirement, the Screening Committee met on 18.11.2019 and considered the case of the petitioner, examined the entire service records including the adverse entries recorded in the year 1998-1999, 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2007- 2008 as well as the report of Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 09.09.2019 and recommended that the petitioner should not be compulsorily retired and should be allowed to continue. But, it is argued that just within next two months, the case of the petitioner was again considered and he has been compulsorily retired, which is not permissible according to law. Learned counsel would submit that the whole exercise of evaluating the case of the employees above 50 years is done pursuant to Government Order No. 131 dated 20.02.2002 (Annexure 1), which at Sl. No. 6 gives time table for the Screening Committee and according to sub-Clause (2) of it, the screening of the employees above 50 years will have to be done each year. It is submitted that the screening committee has to meet once in a year to consider the case of the employees, who have completed 50 years. In a year twice the Committee cannot sit as per Government Order dated 20.02.2020. Learned counsel would also submit that in its meeting dated 18.11.2019, the Screening Committee had considered the entire service record of the petitioner and recommended him for continuance beyond 50 years. Thereafter, he could have been assessed after one year. But again reviewing the case in the month of January, 2020, a procedural, impropriety has been done by the respondent State, which requires to be rectified by quashing the impugned order.

7. It is also argued that, in fact, by giving promotion, the earlier adverse remarks had washed off, in view of settled law. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the principles of law, as laid down in the cases of Arun Ku