SAJAN MANNALI Vs. HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is by an advocate ordinarily practising in this court challenging the order Ext. R1(f) dated July 29, 1993, which was subsequently marked by the petitioner as Ext. P1(b), of the Chief Justice of this court, the first respondent, as also the consequential proceedings Ext. P1 dated July 31, 1993, extending the period of service of the third respondent Sri. M.C. Madhavan, as Registrar of this court from the forenoon of August 1, 1993, so long as he continued as Special Officer for the establishment of the State Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner alleges and claims that he has filed the writ petition as a member of the Bar and as a citizen of this country, in discharge of his "duty to make an endeavour to uphold the rule of law in this country by defending the independence and integrity of the judiciary against every offensive tending to undermine its credibility in public esteem". We may at once mention that this tall claim of pro bono public spirit got diluted and devalued into a personal interest in the reply affidavit which the petitioner filed in the matter. More about it later. The background facts leading to the writ petition are as follows.

(2.) The third respondent joined the High Court service in September 1958 and was appointed the Registrar of this court on August 1,1983, the post being one borne in and governed by the Kerala High Court Service Rules, 1970 (the Rules), framed under Art.229 of the Constitution of India. He was due to retire on superannuation on January 31, 1992 after attaining the age of fifty five years on January, 81992. The Chief Justice was however of the view that it was imperative and absolutely necessary in public interest, in the interests of the High Court and of the subordinate courts, and on public grounds that the services of the third respondent should be continued beyond his age of superannuation at least for a period of eighteen months, and accordingly extended his services for a period of eighteen months beyond January 31, 1992. While ordering this extension, the Chief Justice had recorded in his minutes Ext. R1(c) dated January 30, 1992 that the third respondent had, apart from his supreme qualities as an officer, introduced during his tenure of office, several excellent administrative procedures and systems, and toned up the administration extremely well with his exquisite managerial skills; some more were under implementation. Several important matters concerning the subordinate judiciary were also pending either decision or implementation. It was for these and other reasons recorded in detail in Ext. R1(c) that the Chief Justice extended the term of office of the third respondent for a period of eighteen months beyond the age of superannuation. Inter alia it was also recorded by the Chief Justice that it required sufficient persuasion from him to make the third respondent agree to continue. The term of office of the third respondent thus stood extended till July 31,1993.

(3.) The State Government had taken a decision to establish a State Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Government felt it necessary to have the services of an officer with sufficient legal background and work experience for dealing with the various matters relating to the establishment of the Tribunal, and appointed the third respondent as the Special Officer for the purpose with the concurrence of the Chief Justice by proceedings dated 22-5-1993. This was in addition to the functions of the third respondent as the Registrar of this court. The third respondent took charge of the assignment as Special Officer on June 5,1993. The files produced by the learned Advocate General disclose that the third respondent had embarked on his duties in right earnest and submitted detailed reports in June/July, 1993 itself containing suggestions and recommendations on various matters pertaining to the establishment of the Tribunal.