MAHESH PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the notification no. 6/est. -a//se./ni/ -11/2012 ka 6783/Ranchi dated 29.5.2012 (Annexure -24) issued by the respondent no. 1, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been compulsorily retired on 30thth May, 2012 from the post of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka. It is further prayed to quash/expunge/delete the adverse entry made in A.C.R., of the petitioner as contained in Annexure -5, 10/1, 10/2 and 15/2. It is further prayed that the direction be issued upon the Respondent no. 2 to reinstate the petitioner on his post of Principal District Judge/Principal Judge, Family Court with all consequential benefits with continuity of service like entire back salary and promotion in super time scale.

(2.) THE brief facts of the present case are as follows: -

(3.) THE learned senior counsel Mr. Dhrub Agrawal appearing for the petitioner by referring Article 233 (1) of the Constitution of India, submitted that appointments, posting and promotion of District Judges, in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. By referring Article 235 of the Constitution of India it is submitted that the control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of District Judge shall be vested in the High Court. In this context, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon paragraphs 23 and 25 of the decision given in the case of Madan Mohan Choudhary -versus -State of Bihar and others, 1999 3 SCC 396 and submitted that in view of the above decision under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the High Court's control over the subordinate judiciary is comprehensive and extends over a variety of matters, including posting, promotion and grant of leave. The three words, namely, "posting", "promotion" and "grant of leave" used in this Article 235 are only illustrative in character and do not limit the extent of control exercised by the High Court over the officers of the subordinate judiciary. It is also submitted that as per the said decision, transfers, promotions and confirmations including transfer of District Judges or the recall of District Judges posted on ex -cadre post or on deputation or on administrative post etc. is also within the administrative control of the High Court. So also premature and compulsory retirement is also within the "control" of the High Court. The learned senior counsel also referred to paragraphs 22 and 24 of the decision given in the case of Registrar, High Court of Madras -versus -R. Rajiah, 1988 3 SCC 211, which reads as under : -