ORDER

1. The petitioner R.C. Sood is a member of Higher Judicial Service in the State of Rajasthan and is a Senior District and Sessions Judge. The petitioner was posted as Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court from l-7-1989 to 1-2-1994, as the District and Sessions Judge at Jodhpur from 2-2-1994 to 4-6-1994 and as the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur from 6-6-1994. By an order dated 22-10-1994 (Annexure A) the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect by the Rajasthan High Court in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 as a consequence of the decision taken by the Full Court in its meeting held on the 20-10-1994 and 21-10-1994. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the suspension order and the entire disciplinary proceedings on which it is based.

2. The material facts emerging from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court by Shri R.K. Jain, Additional Registrar (Writs) and the original record produced before us may now be stated.

3. On 29-9-1993 the High Court in its meeting resolved as under:

"Having considered the report of the Promotion Committee, resolved that the 7 vacancies are determined for direct recruitment to the RHJS cadre keeping reservation for Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes as per Rules."

4. Pursuant to that Resolution, a draft advertisement was finalised in the Registry of the High Court on 7-12-1993, both in Hindi and in English, mentioning therein the conditions of eligibility of the candidates and the same were published by a notification dated 4-1-1994 in the Gazette dated 18-1-1994. According to the advertisement as published, the age limit for the candidates was shown as the minimum of 35 years and maximum of 45 years on 1-1-1995. Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 in which provision is made regarding the age limit of the candidates, reads as under:

"A candidate for direct recruitment to the service must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years on the first day of January preceding the last date fixed for submission of the application (rest not relevant)."

The advertisement in Hindi and English mentioned the last date for the receipt of the applications as 18-3-1994 and 29-3-1994 respectively.

5. It is therefore clear that the date with reference to which the eligibility of the candidates as to age had to be examined was required to be mentioned as "1-1-1994" instead of "1-1-1995" shown in the advertisement. Even after receipt of the applications, this error remained undetected in the Registry till a Committee of two Judges, namely, Mrs Justice Mohini Kapoor and Mr Justice R.S. Verma was constituted to examine the same. The above mistake of mentioning "1-1-1995" instead of "1-1-1994" as the date for reckoning the eligibility as to age was discovered by that Committee. The Committee in its report (Annexure R-5) dated 8-9-1994 stated thus:

"Thus, the Notification inviting the applications is not in accordance with the Rules. We would suggest that a proper notification should be issued for inviting applications and at this stage no useful purpose would be served by scrutinising the applications already received. If further exercise is done on the basis of this Notification, there is every chance that the selection would be vitiated. This matter be placed before Honble the Chief Justice for taking suitable action against the officers who are responsible for the issue of incorrect notification and for taking decision for issue of fresh notification."

The learned Chief Justice then directed circulation of this report to all the Judges of the High Court.

6. The record placed before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the High Court shows that two Judges, namely, Mr Justice N.K. Jain and Mr Justice B.R. Arora made a note to the effect that in addition to issue of a fresh