ORDER (Per G.S. Singhvi, C.J.)

This petition is directed against G.O.Ms. No.99, Law (I.A & J.S.C.F) Department, dated 25-7-2005 as amended on 30-7-2005, whereby the Government of Andhra Pradesh retired the petitioner, who was a member of the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service, on attaining the age of 58 years by invoking proviso to Section 3 (1-A) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (for short, the Act).

2.. The petitioners date of birth is 11-7-1947. He joined judicial service of the State of Andhra Pradesh as District Munsif on 16-8-1976. He was promoted as Sub-Judge on 31-8-1987, as District and Sessions Judge Grade-II with effect from 6-1-1992 and as District and Sessions Judge, Grade-I with effect from 8-4-2002. In terms of the substantive part of Section 3 (1-A) of the Act, as amended on 22-7-1998, he would have retired from service on 31-7-2007, but, on the recommendations made by High Court, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.99 dated 25-7 -2005 for his compulsory retirement with effect from 31-7-2005. Subsequently, that G.O. was amended by another G.O. dated 30-7-2005.

3. The petitioner has challenged the order of retirement on the following grounds:

(1) In terms of Article 235 of the Constitution, the decision to retire a member of the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service can be taken only by the Full Court of the High Court and not by the Committee of Judges and, therefore, the G.O. issued by the State Government on the recommendations of the Administrative Committee of the High Court is liable to be declared as nullity.

(2) The recommendations made by the Administrative Committee of the High Court, which led to the issuance of the impugned G.O. are liable to be quashed because the procedure prescribed under Rule 9 read with Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, the 1991 Rules) was not followed.

(3) There is no adverse remark in his service record and no tangible material was available before the Administrative Committee which could justify formation of an opinion that he was not fit to be continued in service till the attaining of 60 years age.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court by Shri S. Sivaiah Naidu, Registrar (Vigilance), it has been averred that the Committee of Judges recommended the petitioners retirement at the age of 58 years because on an overall assessment of his service record, he was not found fit to be continued in service upto the age of 60 years. Accordingly, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.99 dated 25-7-2005, which was subsequently amended by G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 30-7-2005. The stand of the High Court is that non-extension of the petitioners service beyond 58 years age on the ground of lack of continued utility cannot be equated with compulsory retirement imposed as a measure of penalty under the 1991 Rules and, therefore, it was not necessary to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 read with Rule 9 of those Rules. In the counter-affidavit, a reference has been made to Resolution dated 12-6-1974 passed by the Full Court of the High Court whereby the Chief Justice was authorized to constitute committees for convenience of administration to deal with every subject and it has been averred that in furtherance of that resolution, the Chief Justice constituted the Committees of Judges to review the records of the officers for the purpose of determining their continued utility for service and, therefore, the recommendations of the Committee of Judges will be deemed to be the recommendations of the High Court.

5. In a separate affidavit filed on behalf of Government of Andhra Pradesh, Shri T. Madan Mohan Reddy, Secretary to Government, Law (I.A & J.S.C.F) Department, has averred that the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.99 dated 25-7-2005 as per the recommendations of the High Court.

6. At this stage, we consider it proper to mentio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document