R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) THESE four petitions filed by the same petitioner, involving interlinked and overlapping issues, are heard together by consent and disposed of by this common order. The facts leading to filing of each of these four writ petitions, are briefly as follows: i. In W. P. No. 16487 of 1989:

( 2 ) PETITIONER was appointed as a district judge on 9-2-1979 by direct recruitment, under the Karnataka district judges (recruitment) rules,1962.

( 3 ) BY letter dated 11-8-1989, the registrar of the high court communicated to the petitioner, the following adverse remarks entered by the Hon'ble chief Justice in the confidential report for 1987 (1-1-1987 to 20-8-1987):"the officer has a tendency to take up light work and bypass old and complicated matters, and there is scope for improvement in his work. On the whole, his work is not upto the standard expected of a senior district judge". the above adverse remark will, for convenience, also be referred to as "adverse remark i (1987)". The petitioner filed objections dated 29-8-1989 and 31-8-1989 to the said adverse remark i (1987 ).

( 4 ) BY letter dated 10-8-1989, the registrar of the High Court of Karnataka communicated the following adverse remark by the Hon'ble chief Justice on 10-8-1989 (while considering the remarks made by petitioner in his capacity as principal district judge, gulbarga in the annual confidential reports of the judicial officers of gulbarga district working under him):"the learned principal district judge has not applied his mind at all. Has expressed his opinion mechanically in a casual manner. In part-ii point 2, he was required to express his opinion on each point. The recording of the remarks shows complete non-applicability of mind". the above adverse remark will, for convenience, also be referred to as "adverse remark ii (1987)". The petitioner filed a representation dated nil (submitted on 28-8-1989) to the said letter dated 10-8-1989 for ex- punction of the remarks.

( 5 ) BY another letter dated 11-8-1989, the high court communicated the following adverse remarks recorded in the petitioner's confidential report for the year 1988.

( 21 ) THERE after, the screening committee of the high court considered his case for retirement in public interest under Section 285 (4) of the Karnataka civil service rules ('kcsr' for short) on 15-11-1996. After considering the crs, work performance and service records, the committee opined that it is not in public interest to continue the petitioner in service and he should be retired under Rule 285 (4) of the kcsrs and made a recommendation to the full court accordingly. The full court by resolution dated 22-11-1996 after considering the resolution dated 15-11-1996 of the committee and after considering the crs, work performance and relevant service records, resolved to accept the recommendation of the screening committee to compulsorily retire the petitioner in public interest under Rule 285 (4) of the kcsrs. Consequently, a notification dated 10-12-1996 (Annexure-Q) was issued by the governor of Karnataka retiring the petitioner from service under Rule 285 (4) of the kcsrs. The petitioner has filed W. P. No. 18151 of 1999 for quashing the said notification dated 10-12-1996 and a direction to the respondents to treat him as having retired from service only on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-11-1997 and for consequential benefits including arrears of salary. Contentions of petitioner:

( 22 ) THE petitioner put forth the following contentions in support of the several reliefs sought in these petitions. 22. 1 the administrative committee No. 1, which considered fifteen district judges (including the petitioner) for promotion to supertime scale, found the petitioner not fit for being selected, because of the adverse remarks entered in his confidential records for 1987 and 1988. The adverse remarks were communicated to him only on 10-8-1989 and 11-8-1989. Even before he could file objections thereto and h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document