B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. :- This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order of compulsory retirement dated 3rd November, 2004 passed under Rule 10(4)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 by the Governor/State Government on the recommendations of the High Court on its administrative side and also the communication dated 28th February, 2005 addressed to him by the Registrar General of this Court informing him that the representation filed by him on 21-12-2004 was rejected by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges of this Court.

2. Rule. Respondents waive service. Rule is taken up for final hearing forthwith with the consent of the parties.

3. The petitioner was born on 12th June, 1950 and came to be enrolled as an advocate in 1974. He entered the judiciary as a Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 19-7-1978. He came to be promoted as Civil Judge, Senior Division in November, 1987. He was further promoted to the post of Additional District Judge towards the end of 1988 and he was brought in the District Judges' cadre (as then it was) in August, 1997 and was posted as Joint District Judge at Pune and was transferred to Solapur and thereafter to Nagpur. He came to be appointed as the District and Sessions Judge, Osmanabad on 22-9-2003.

4. Mr. Soni, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's entire service record was good, his disposal was recorded either as Noteworthy or Good/Satisfactory and at no point of time he was ever intimated any adverse confidential remarks against him, about his integrity, character and behaviour etc. By relying upon the communication dated 18-11-1999 received by the petitioner from the Registrar, Appellate Side of this Court it was contended that on attaining the age of 50 years he was subjected to the first review as contemplated under Rule 10(4)(a)(i) of the Pension Rules and, therefore, he could not have been subjected to a second review unless he had attained the age of 55 years and on the contrary he has been compulsorily retired by the impugned order after he crossed the age of 54 years. If his entire service record is taken into consideration, there was no case against him to retire him compulsorily in public interest as he was neither a dead wood nor his integrity was doubtful or his character was unbecoming of a Judge. All along he was intimated that· his disposal was noteworthy or satisfactory and having been granted the promotion in August, 1997 and further having been appointed as the District and Sessions Judge, Osmanabad on 22-9-2003, there was no case to hold that the petitioner's utility for being retained in judicial service had extinguished and in public interest he was required to be compulsorily retired. In support of these arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a number of decisions and some of them are as follows :

Swami Saran vs. State of U.P., AIR 1980 SC 269, Madan Mohan Choudhary vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1999 SC 1018, P. K. Shastri vs. State of M.P., AIR 1999 SC 3273, State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR 2001 SC 1109. He also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Arvind M. Shah vs. High Court of Judicature at Bombay and ors., 1994(1l) CLR 1156.

5. For opposing the writ petition the Registrar (Legal) of this Court has filed affidavit-in-reply and supported the impugned order of compulsory retirement in the following words:

"Petitioner - Ashokkumar Hiralal Lohiya, was working as Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune when his case was reviewed after attaining the age of 54 years along with some other Judicial Officers. He has been compulsorily retired as a result of the screening of entire service record including his annual confidential reports and general performance in accordance with sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. T