PRASHANT YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned order of the Govt. of Rajasthan dt.31.3.2010 whereby in pursuance of Rule 53(1) of Raj. Civil Service Pension Rules, 1996 (Rules 1996) he was compulsorily retired on recommendation of the High Court.

(2.) The facts that culled out are that the petitioner was initially selected in Rajasthan Judicial Service in the year 1989 and appointed as Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate. He was promoted to the post of Civil Judge-Cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the year 1997 and promoted on the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) in the year 2003 and thereafter in the cadre of RHJS as Additional District & Session Judge vide order dt.11.1.2008.

(3.) While the petitioner was working as an officer of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, a committee of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court was constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dt.30.11.2009 to consider the cases of such of the judicial officers of the State of Rajasthan who have become deadwood or lost its utility for compulsory retirement obviously who qualified pre conditions contemplated under R.53(1) of Rules 1996, however, one of Hon'ble Judge who stood retired, hence, Hon'ble the Chief Justice reconstituted the committee of remaining four Hon'ble Judges and the committee in its meeting held on 2.3.2010 considered the cases of good number of judicial officers including petitioner and after examining overall record of service, personal and other files of the officer and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner became liability to the judicial service and public interest warrants compulsory retirement of the officer and accordingly recommended for his compulsory retirement which was placed before the Full Court and after due deliberation and discussions and perusing the overall service record/ACRs it was resolved by the Full Court vide order dt.20.3.2010 to accept the report of the Committee and recommended petitioner's compulsory retirement and consequently vide Govt. Order dt.31.3.2010, the petitioner was compulsorily retired under R.53(1) of Rules 1996.