ORDER

Sachdeva, J. -- 1. Petitioner impugns order dated 30.11.2004 whereby petitioner has been compulsorily retired from service under Rule 42(1)(b) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and Fundamental Rules 56(2)(a) read with rule 17 of High Court of Madhya Pradesh Officers & Employees (Classification Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 1996.

2. Petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the services of the High Court in the year 1981. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II in 2003. As a consequence of promotion, petitioner was transferred from the Indore Bench of High Court to the Gwalior Bench and consequently, petitioner represented against the same and forwent his promotion.

3. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated dated 30.11.2004, petitioner has been compulsorily retired.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner impugns the order primarily on the following grounds :--

(i) That, the Committee which recommended for compulsory retirement did not take into account the entire career profile of the petitioner and took into account only the last five Annual Confidential Reports ('ACR' for Short).

(ii) That, the Committee overlooked the factum of promotion of the petitioner to a higher post in the year 2003 and took into account an ACR of the preceding year i.e. of 1999-2000.

(iii) That, the adverse ACR of the year 2003-2004 could not have been taken into account for the reason that petitioner had given a representation against the ACR, which as per the petitioner has till date not been decided.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent contends that the Committee which examined the records of all the employees who had completed 20 years of service and 50 years of age, comprised of two sitting Judges of this Court besides a Registrar an and d took into account the entire career profile of each of the officers/employees. He submits that the Committee had decided to recommend compulsory retirement of officers who had at least one poor or unsatisfactory ACR in the last five years of consideration. In the case of petitioner, there were two adverse ACRs one for the year 1999-2000 and the other for the year 2003-2004. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is unaware as to whether the representation given by him has been decided or not and without prejudice submits that the Committee could have looked into the adverse entries even if the representation was not decided. He submits that the adverse ACR does not get effaced and can still be taken into account.

6. Learned counsel further submits submits that merely because petitioner was promoted would not nullify the adverse comments made against petitioner in the previous ACRs. He further submits that the adverse ACR of 2003-2004 was written after the order of promotion and as such the adversity in thee ACRs could certainly have been taken into account by the Committee. He relies on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab v. Gurdas Singh, (1998) 4 SCC 92, Rajendra Singh Verma v. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2011) 10 SCC 1 and Central Industrial Security Force BS. HC (GD) Om Prakash, (2022) 5 SCC 100.

7. For determining the questions that arise for consideration, it would be necessary to first examine the report of the Committee. The relevant portion of the report of the the Committee dated 18.11.2004 reads as under :--

"The Hon'ble Committee examined in details each and every case falling within the criteria of attainment of 50 years of age or completion of 20 years of service. The Hon'ble Committee has seriously deliberated on all the 58 cases as per Annexure 'A' and in particularly 15 Officials/Employees whose A.C.Rs for the last 5 years from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004 were reported to be poor/unsatisfactory in any particular year or more. In this regard, relevant statement showing names of the 15 Employees whose A.C.RS were reported to be adverse is annexed here at Annexure 'B'.

After considering all t