SATYA NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHARM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the letter issued by the Registrar General, High Court of Patna on 3.1.2002 whereunder the petitioner was informed that the Court having assessed and evaluated the petitioner 'sservices have been pleased not to allow the petitioner the benefit of enhancement of the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years and further informs the petitioner that the petitioner shall cease to be a member of the judicial service of the State on his completing the age of 58 years.

(2.) THE petitioner submits that the refusal of extension for a further period of two years is patently illegal and is in the teeth of the service records and the confidential reports of the present petitioner. It is also submitted that the denial of extension to the petitioner is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the Judicial Officers having no comparative records with the petitioner have been allowed the extension and the said decision is contrary to the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play, and the order is arbitrary.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, though he had earned certain adverse entries, certain files were opened against him and sometimes he was required to submit the show cause but even the totality of the adverse entries, opening of the files and notice to show cause was not such an impediment to refuse him the extension in the services.