R.SELVANAYAGI KANNAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of compulsorily retirement made in public interest issued under Fundamental Rule 56(2) in G.O.Ms.No.48, Home (Courts-I) Department, dtd. 28/1/2022, is under challenge in the present writ proceedings.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the year 2003. She was promoted to the post of Senior Civil Judge on 18/9/2015. The Bar Association, Neyveli gave a complaint against the petitioner to the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore. The petitioner gave a complaint against one Advocate Mr.Anandaraj on 15/6/2017. The Additional Registrar (IT and Statistics) of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has recorded that there was short of 39 cases in disposal, while working in the Eraniel Court regarding the compliance norms. The petitioner submitted her explanation stating that the Eraniel Court started functioning only on 4/8/2018 and the transfer of bundles from Padmanathapuram Court was delayed. Further there was lack of cooperation from the Advocates. It was informed to the petitioner on 26/8/2020 that in Annual Confidential Report, it was recorded as 'Disposal Below Average' for the period from 4/8/2018 to 31/12/2018. The petitioner submitted her explanation. However, the said explanation was rejected. The petitioner was promoted to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) vide High Court's Notification No.41 of 2021 dtd. 3/2/2021. The petitioner submitted her representation on 11/2/2021, assigning the reasons for not completing the norms fixed for disposal of cases. Subsequently, the High Court has forwarded the proposal to compulsorily retire the petitioner in public interest. Thereafter, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.48, dtd. 28/1/2022, was issued by the Government. Thus the present writ petition came to be instituted.

(3.) Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen, learned counsel for the petitioner, would mainly contend that compulsory retirement of the petitioner in public interest by not extending the services beyond 50 years is unjust and untenable. There is no sufficient material available on record to form an opinion to compulsorily retire the petitioner in public interest. Regarding the statistics that the petitioner had not reached the norms, explanation was submitted stating that the Court at Eraniel, Kanyakumari District was constituted newly and there was lack of cooperation on the part of the Advocates.