G. NAGESWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking for a writ of certiorari, to quash the proceedings of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the second respondent, in Roc. No. 4400/93 B. Spl. dated Sept. 28, 1993 wherein, the petitioner who was working as District Munsif, was retired compulsorily on completion of 58 years of age, on the following allegations:-

(2.) The petitioner was appointed initially, as L.D. Clerk in the High Court in Sept., 1962. After earning usual promotions in the office, by virtue of his seniority he was promoted and appointed as Judicial Second Class Magistrate on Jan. 23, 1976. He was again promoted as Judicial First Class Magistrate in Sept., 1976, and eversince, he was working as such till Sept. 30, 1993 when he was compulsorily retired, except for a short spell between March, 1977 and Oct., 1977 when he was reverted back to High Court for want of vacancy. Though the petitioner had opted to continue in service by exercising his option by a letter dated Sept. 9, 1993 in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Review Petition No. 249 of 1993 in Writ Petition No. 1022 of 1989 and batch, dated Aug. 24, 1993, the petitioner was served with the impugned proceedings on Sept. 29, 1993 at 1.30 p.m. directing him to retire on the afternoon of Sept. 30, 1993. The committee of judges constituted for the purpose of evaluating the service record of the petitioner, took into consideration the confidential rolls of the petitioner for a period of three years preceding the date of review and not the entire service record of 17 years and as some seniormost judges who are members of the review committee, did not participate, the decision is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. As per the directions of the Supreme Court in its judgment dated Aug. 24, 1993, one month's time is given from the date of judgment for exercising option and review should be undertaken within two months thereafter. Curiously, in this case, the petitioner received the letter dated Sept. 4, 1993 from the second respondent on Sept. 6, 1993 asking him to exercise his option to continue in service on or before Sept. 16, 1993 and the petitioner had expressed his willingness by his letter dated Sept. 9, 1993. The review of the work of the petitioner was done before the expiry of one month which is in gross violation of the clear directions given by the Supreme Court. The petitioner was regularised as District Munsif along with others by the first respondent by G.O.Ms. No. 590 dated Dec. 1, 1992 on the recommendations made by the High Court. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has requisite potential for continued useful service beyond 58 years of age. Even as per the last paragraph of the judgment dated Aug. 24, 1993, any clarification that may be required in respect of any matter arising out of the said decision will be sought only from the Supreme Court and from no other Court, and therefore, a clarification from the Supreme Court is a must about the officers who will be completing 58 years of age after Aug. 24, 1993, but before the expiry of three months granted in the judgment. The High Court ought not have decided this issue without seeking for appropriate clarification from the Supreme Court.

(3.) The second respondent in its counter-affidavit has stated that the High Court at the time of review considered the past record of the petitioner for the entire 17 years as Judicial Officer and other relevant factors and as the petitioner was found to be wanting in requisite potential for continued useful service beyond 58 years of age, he was directed to retire on completion of 58 years of age. The allegation that Justice G. Radhakrishna Rao, one of the senior judges of the review committee, did not participate in the proceedings at the time of review of the petitioner's case, is denied as the same is incorrect. It is further stated that as per para 13 of the judgment of the Supreme Court, dated Aug. 24, 1993, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition, and therefore, prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. Writ Petition No. 14670 of 1993 :