MOHD. RAHEEM FAROOQUI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 12.5.2003, the petitioner, an officer of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (for short 'RHJS') has to retire from service w.e.f. 31 10.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. Impugning the said order the petitioner, in the instant writ petition, seeks direction to allow him to continue in service till the age of 60 years. The petitioner also seeks to declare as ultra vires the Exception appended to Rule 56-A of Rajasthan Service Rules (for short 'RSR').

(2.) The petitioner averred in the writ petition that on several occasions service record of the petitioner was assessed and evaluated and after finding it unblemished and satisfactory the petitioner was given promotion to RHJS and granted Senior Scale of RJS. The petitioner, in view of the ratio indicated in All India Judges Association v. UOI (2002) 4 SCC 247 (for short 'Ill All India Judges case') could not have been retired till the completion of 60 years of age. It is further pleaded that there was no basis to hold that the petitioner did not have potential for continued judicial purposes in the is service. The service record of the petitioner was nor considered objectively and action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner on completion of 58 years of age and not extending the retiring age till 60 years, is arbitrary and perverse. it is also stated that Exception to Rule 56-A of RSR being violative to Article 14 of the Constitution deserves to be quashed.

(3.) We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced before us and scanned the minutes of the meeting of the Committee of Seven Hon'ble Judges headed by the Chief Justice and other relevant record. Pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288 (for short All India Judges case') the matter of several judicial officers (including the petitioner) was placed before the Committee for consideration to give them benefit of extension upto the age of 60 years. The Committee on examination of the service record, character roll. quality of work, disposal, integrity, general reputation, potentiality and utility, found that the petitioner is not fit to be given the benefit of extension. On a close scrutiny of the report of the Committee we find that the Committee had extensively scanned the entire record with minute details before arriving at the conclusion. In the opinion of the Committee the petitioner did not possess sufficient potentiality and utility so as to give him the benefit of extension of service upto the age of 60 years. The Full Court has also put its seal of approval on the report of Committee. We do not see any merit in the submission that service record of the petitioner was not considered objectively.