W.P. No. 160 of 2001 (SB) Old no. (35649/2000) Hon’ble The Chief Justice Hon’ble P.C. Pant J. The petition is dismissed. Order is passed in WPSB 158/01 Dt. 8.2.2005 (PCPJ) (VSSCJ) Which is as follows: 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Civil Writ Petition No. 158 of 2001 (S/B) (Old No. 35646 of 2000) 1. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Technical Education (Section 2), Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow. 2. Director of Technical Education, U.P. Kanpur Nagar. ………..Petitioners VERSUS 1. State Public Service Tribunal Indira Bhawan, Lucknow 2. Rajendra Singh Gangwar (Deceased) S/o Machal Singh, Resident of Tamta House Gouchar District Chamoli. 2/1 Smt. Sunita Gangwar W/o late Shri Rajendra Gangwar R/o 220 KV Substation Power House Mainpuri (U.P.) 2/2 Smt. Anjana Gangwar D/o late Shri Rajendra Singh Gangwar R/o House No. 2 B-Block Guru Amar Das Avenue Gumtala Bye Pass, Amritsar 2/3 Km. Deepika Gangwar D/o late Shri Rajendra Singh Gangwar R/o 220 KV Substation Power House Mainpuri (U.P.) ……Respondents ALONG WITH 3 Civil Writ Petition No. 159 of 2001 (S/B) (Old No. 35648 of 2000) Civil Writ Petition No. 160 of 2001 (S/B) (Old No. 35649 of 2000) AND Civil Writ Petition No. 161 of 2001 (S/B) (Old No. 35644 of 2000) Between same parties as above Mrs. Beena Pande, Learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. Shri Mangal Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2. Coram: Hon’ble V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Per Hon’ble P.C. Pant, J. We “dismissed” the above petitions arising out of common judgment with the observation that “reasons shall follow”. 2. The reasons are being given as follows: By means of these writ petitions, the state of U.P. and Director of Technical Education, have challenged the judgment and order dated 16.03.2000 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, whereby the Claim Petition No. 84 of 1999, Claim Petition No.1838 of 1998, Claim Petition No. 1854 of 1998 and Claim Petition No.1801 of 1998 of respondent no. 2 Shri Rajendra Singh Gangwar (since deceased) were allowed quashing the order dated 22.07.1998 passed by the State Government whereby he was compulsorarily retired, and also the orders of rejection of his representations against the adverse entries for the year 1989-90, 1991-92 and 1992-93 were quashed . 4 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners at the stage of admission. 5. Brief facts of the case are that Shri Rajendra Singh Gangwar (Respondent no. 2) served as a Principal in Government Polytechnic at various places before he was compulsorarily retired vide impugned order dated 22.07.1998. During his service career he earned adverse entries for the years 1987-88, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1992- 93. Perusal of the record shows that the adverse entry for the year 1987-88 was that the officer did not take sufficient interest in the selection of land for the college. In the year 1989-90 he got adverse entry to the effect that his control over the staff and discipline over the students was ordinary. For the year 1991-92 the Officer was given adverse entry as to the fact that far-sightedness and administrative capacity was desired. Again for the year 1992-93 adverse entry was regarding grading but not communicated to him before his compulsory retirement. The respondent no. 2 Shri Rajendra Singh Gangwar completed age of 50 years on 05.06.1994 where after under fundamental rule 56 of the Financial Handbook Volume-II Part 2-4, he could have been retired compulsorarily on the basis of his service record. However, he was retired after four years in the year 1998 after keeping silence for the intervening four years wherein no adverse entries are reported to have been earned by him. Respondent no. 2 Shri Rajendra Singh Gangwar challenged the rejection of the representations against the adverse entries and also the impugned order of the compulsory retirement. The State Public Service Tribunal Lucknow allowed all the claim petitions, quashing the 5 order of the compulsory retirement and the orders of rejection of the representations made by the respondent no. 2 against the adverse entries. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the tribunal, these petitions have been filed. 6. None of the adverse entries relate to the integrity of the respondent no.2, which appears to have been certified for every year nor the adverse entries relate to any mis- conduct. Not only this the State appears to have remained silent from the year 1994 till the order of compulsory retirement was passed in 1998. And during this period it even passed order as to crossing of the efficiency bar by the concerned officer. 7. Learned Tribunal, after taking the note of the nature of the entries and the grounds mentioned by the employee in his representations for expunction of the adverse remarks, allowed the claim petitions. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. The adverse entries mentioned as above neither relate to the integrity of the officer nor show any mis-conduct on his part and could not have been made basis of the compulsory retirement that too suddenly after four years. In its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can interfere with the judgments and awards of the Tribunal only if either the impugned orders are illegal or passed without the jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned Tribunal has observed that the services of the respondent no. 2 were regularized as Principal after he was awarded the above mentioned adverse entries. It has also been observed by the Tribunal that before awarding 6 the aforementioned adverse entries relating to administrative incompetence there was nothing on the record to support the said entries or if the officer was communicated to do particular work or to improve his performance. 8. In these facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that it is not fit case in which interference is required with the impugned judgment and order passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow. All the four writ petitions are accordingly dismissed summarily at the stage of admission. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) (V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.) Dt. 08.02.05 Sweta