S INDUDHARA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these Writ Petitions were all Judicial Officers in the subordinate judiciary. While working, they have rendered service in various capacities. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Review Petition No. 249/92 on 24. 8. 1993, the petitioners had been compulsorily retired under the impugned notifications on their attaining 58 years of age in terms of Rule 95 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions urging various grounds. Petitioners claim that they should have been continued in service upto the age of 60 years.

(2.) WHEN these matters came up for consideration before one of the learned Single Judge, the Judge fell that the issues raised in these Writ Petitions are issues of public importance and having opined so, he referred these matters to a Division Bench under section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act by an order dated

(3.) 3. 1999. That is how these matters had been posted before us. 3. Statement of objections are filed on behalf of the respondents justifying the impugned notifications and praying for dismissal of the writ Petitions.