RAMJEE PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner posted as Sub-Judge, Muzaffarpur, being aggrieved by the order, dated 8th May, 2001, sent by the then Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Patna, informing the petitioner that in view of the decision of the High Court he ceased to be member of Judicial Services of the State on completion of age of 58 years, has now come to this Court, inter alia, submitting that non-grant of extension is bad, the petitioner who was earlier held to be utile in law by proving his utility and as from the counter it would clearly appear that for the period between 1990-1991 up to the date of his superannuation he always earned a good and satisfactory remarks, the extension could not be refused. It is contended by the petitioner that the non-communicated entries of the service career have been taken into consideration to reject his claim and even otherwise there no material was available against the interest of the petitioner to give a weapon in the hands of the Evaluation Committee of the High Court to cut short his service career. Placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the matter of Shyam Deo Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2001 (2) PLJR., 18, it is sought to be contended that the entries which were not communicated to the petitioner could not be taken into consideration and in any case the petitioner's case in view of the entries earned by him should have been favourably considered.

(3.) Contrary to the above, learned counsel for the High Court and the State submitted that the petitioner though was graded as good or satisfactory and not graded as bad or unsatisfactory after 1990 and was also given promotion as Sub Judge in the year 2001 but that would not mean that his earlier records could not be taken into consideration. Placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Satya Narayan Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2003 (3) PLJR 837, it is contended that the High Court on the administrative side is obliged to consider that whether the officer should be continued in services whether the extension is to be granted on the available material or not. It is also submitted that certain compliant petitions were filed against the petitioner and certain enquiries were made, though the Inspecting Judge or the High Court observed that nothing further is required to be done but that would not mean that the petitioner was not prone to the complaints or the complaints had no bearing in the character and the conduct of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the grant of extension cannot be claimed as of a right because it is a benefit conferred upon the officer after his due assessment in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court. According to the respondents, the petitioner's career had not been par excellence and, therefore, non-grant of the extension is absolutely justified.