S.N.JHA, J.

1. The Supreme Court by its judgment in All India Judges"Association V/s. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 2493: (1993) 4 SCC 288 has raised the superannuation age of subordinate Judicial Officers to 60 years subject to assessment and evaluation by the respective High Courts as to the potential of the officer for continued useful service. The petitioner, then posted as District and Sessions Judge, Katihar, has been denied the benefit of the increased age of superannuation. A communication to the above effect was sent by the Registrar Patna High Court, on 23/11/1993. He challenged the said decision in the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 1994 which was permitted to be withdrawn on 7/01/1994 with liberty to move the High Court. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Copy of the said letter of the Registrar has been marked Annexure-12 to the writ petition.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Shortly stated, the petitioner was appointed as an Additional District and Sessions Judge in the Bihar Superior Judicial Service in 1980. He was confirmed on the said post in 1981. He served as Wakf Commissioner and Special Officer, Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board on deputation from April 1983 to Sept. 1985. During the aforesaid tenure of his service some allegations were made regarding certain appointments as having been made by him without observing the usual norms and certain other omissions and commissions for his own benefits. The Secretary, Law Department, Government of Bihar, informed the Registrar, Patna High Court, about the on going enquiry with respect to the said allegations by his letter dated 23/10/1984. After enquiry by the Vigilance Department and the Law Department, however, the petitioner was given a clean chit. A communication to this effect was sent by the Secretary, Law Department to the Registrar on 24/04/1986 stating that the matter may be treated as dropped. The Registrar, Patna High Court, however, wrote to the Secretary, Law Department to furnish the materials collected against the petitioner during his tenure as Wakf Commissioner. The petitioner has asserted that the Law Department forwarded the entire materials to the High Court. The Standing Committee of the High Court examined the matter and came to the conclusion that the allegations were without any substance and the matter was, accordingly, treated as finally closed by the High Court as well the petitioner was posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge at Aurangabad and then as District and Sessions Judge at Madhubani, Bhagalpur and Dhanbad and finally Katihar. In the meantime, he was granted selection grade in the Bihar Superior Judicial service with effect from 1/02/1988.

3. The petitioner has asserted that he has had an above averge record of service and no adverse entry was ever communicated to him. In the year 1992 the position of the petitioner was third or fourth in order of seniority in the superior Judicial Service. At that time there were several vacancies in the High Court and as per the prevalent convention of appointing 1 / 3rd Judges from the Judicial Service he was well within the zone of consideration for his elevation as a High Court Judge. The petitioner has alleged that some persons junior to him in the service at this juncture manoeuvred to rake up the issue of so-called irregular appointment. The joint Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department requested the High Court to initiate departmental proceeding with respect to the charges already framed by the Law Department. On 14/10/1991 a departmental proceeding was, in fact, initiated by the High Court. According to the petitioner, the proceeding relates to the same charge which had already been enquired into and dropped earlier. He submitted his show cause. He also made a request to the Registrar of the High Court to bring certain facts before the Court on 24/01/1992