Judgment

DUTT, J. :- These two appeals are directed against a common judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court whereby, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court quashed the orders of compulsory retirement of the two respondents, Mr. R. Rajiah and Mr. K. Rajeswaran, who were then the District Munsifs.

2. The respondent, R. Rajiah, originally joined service as a Sub-Magistrate on 3-3-1965. On 6-1-1973, he was appointed a District Munsif in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. While he was functioning as District Munsif, on 3-3-1980 the Registrar of the High Court, the appellant herein, sent a communication to the respondent Rajiah stating therein that he was being compulsorily retired from service in public interest with effect from 3-3-1980.

3. The other respondent, K. Rajeswaran, was also originally appointed a Sub-Magistrate in 1953. On 29-11-1971, he was appointed a District Munsif having been selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. On 22-2-1976, the High Court passed an order confirming him as District Munsif with effect from 1-1-1976. On 27-10-1976, the High Court passed an order compulsorily retiring him from service, which was communicated to him by the Registrar.

4. Both the respondents being aggrieved by the orders of compulsory retirement, moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the impugned orders of compulsory retirement passed by the High Court in its administrative jurisdiction under Rule 56(d) of the Fundamental Rules.

5. The principal contention of the respondents before the High Court was that the High Court had no power to compulsorily retire members of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. Such an order could be Passed only by the State Governor, who was the appointing authority. All that the High Court could do was to make a recommendation to the State Governor in that behalf. It was also contended on behalf of the respondents that there was no material on record which would justify the premature retirement of the respondents. The respondents also challenged the validity of the constitution of the Review Committees of the High Court that passed the impugned orders of compulsory retirement.

6. Two learned Judges of the Division Bench delivered two separate judgments. One of the learned Judges of the Division Bench took the view that though it was within the jurisdiction of the High Court to take a decision whether a member of the State Judicial Service should be compulsorily retired or not in public interest, the formal order of compulsory retirement was to be passed by the Governor acting on the recommendation of the High Court. The other learned Judge, however, did not subscribe to the above view. According to him, it was the High Court which was competent to pass an order of compulsory retirement of a member of the State Judicial Service without any formal order by the Governor under rule 56(d) of the Fundamental Rules. Both the learned Judges, however, came to the conclusion that there was no material on record to justify the impugned orders of compulsory retirement of the two respondents. The learned Judges also held against the validity of the constitution of the Review Committee of the High Court that considered the question of passing the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent, Rajeswaran. According to the learned Judges, the irregular or illegal constitution of the Review Committee vitiated the impugned order of compulsory retirement. In the case of respondent, Rajiah, it was held that the manner in which the Review Committee considered the question of compulsory retirement of Rajiah was illegal. The writ petitions filed by the respondents were, accordingly, allowed by the High Court and the impugned orders of compulsory retirement were quashed. Hence these two appeals.

7. Mr. Datta, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the High Court, has stren