SADASHIV VISHNU RAYATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule.

(2.) Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order of respondent No. 1 dated 26-3-2008, by which order the petitioner has been compulsory retired from service. The petitioner was serving as a Judicial Officer and at the relevant time, was serving as Ad Hoc District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. At the time of completion of 53 years, the case of the petitioner was reviewed for continuation by the High Court on its administrative side. After considering the service record of the petitioner for the preceding five years, the administration of the High Court took a decision not to continue the petitioner in service as the High Court was satisfied that no useful purpose will be served by continuing the petitioner. In terms of the aforesaid order passed by the Review Committee of the High Court, that the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent No. 1. The said order has been assailed by the petitioner on two grounds i.e. the power of review was not available with the High Court at the time when the petitioner completed 53 years of age and such powers could have exercised only at the time when a Judicial Officer attains the age of 50 and 55 years and that the service record of the petitioner was not that bad, which may justify taking such action.