STATE OF MADRAS Vs. A R SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment of this Court in W. A. No. 78 of 1961 affirming the judgment in W. P. No. 977 of 1958.

(2.) THE writ petition was one under Article 226 of the Constitution by an officer in government service to quash the disciplinary proceedings against him which culminated in his compulsory retirement. He succeeded before Ramachandra Iyer j. , as he then was, and the learned juage issued a writ. On appeal by the State of madras we contained the issue of writ, The State now prays for leave to appeal from our judgment.

(3.) WE may point out at the outset that the respondent officer is now 58 years old and he reached the superannuation limit three years ago. The order of writ in his favour cannot avail him to get into the office again. This circumstance cannot operate retrospectively to support the correctness of the judgment now called in question nor to dismiss the application for leave if it is competent under the constitutional provision. But it would be a relevant circumstance to take into account if the granting of leave in this case were to be a matter of discretion and not in recognition of a right in the State. The learned Additional Government pleader appearing for the State made it quite clear that though the application purported to be under Article 133 (1) (a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution he could not contend that it would lie either under Article 133 (1) (a) or (b ). His limited submission therefore was that the case was a fit one for this court to grant a certificate under Article 133 (1) (c ).