R.N.Prasad, J.

1. By this writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who was a member of Subordinate Judicial Service and posted as Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, prayed for quashing the order contained in letter no. 19542 dated 6/7.12.1999 whereby she was not allowed the benefit of retirement at the age of 60 years rather to retire at the age of 58 years, Annexure-5, the order contained in letter no. 2458 dated 19.2.2000 whereby her representation dated 4.1.2000 to allow her benefit to retire at the age of 60 years has been rejected, Annexure-7, and also the adverse remarks recorded on 11.10.1999 by the Inspecting Judge communicated to her vide letter dated 6.12.1999, Annexure-3.

2. The petitioner has challenged the communication, Annexure-5 not allowing the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 60 years on the ground; firstly, that in view of the decision of the Apex Court, the retirement age of Judicial Officer stood increased to 60 years, before attaining the age of. 60 years the petitioner cannot be made to retire at the age of 58 years except by following procedure for compulsory retirement, the order, Annexure-5, in reality is a camouflage for an order of punishment as dismissal/compulsory retirement without complying with the requirement of natural justice and is violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India; secondly, that the petitioner has been made to retire at the age of 58 years without considering the entire service records of the petitioner and only on the basis of adverse remarks recorded by the Inspecting Judge, Annexure-3, though there was no occasion to record such adverse remarks and as such the impugned order, Annexure-5, is arbitrary based on no material hence is vitiated.

3. The resume of the case is that the petitioner entered in judicial service as Judicial Magistrate on 31.3.1975. She was confirmed in due course. She was appointed as Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate. On 30.5.1996 she was promoted as Subordinate Judge. On 23.7.1997 she was conferred power of Assistant Sessions Judge. On 8.1.1998 she was selected for Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate but she made representation to forgo the post of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and to stay at Patna which was allowed. On 9.4.1999 her consenl was obtained for appointment on the post of Legal Advisor-cum-Deputy Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board at Patna on deputation. She worked with full sincerity, integrity and efficiency to the satisfactior of her superiors. There were no adverse remarks except Annexure-3. She was transferred from Patna to Ranchi as Subordinate Judge. She joined there or whispering of partiality. She was found to be shirker. Her out-turn was found to be poor. The District Judges suggested to improve her efficiency. Many times files were opened on the complaints received. The petitioner while posted at Hajipur a file was opened on the basis of letter received from the Joint Secretary, Department of Law indicating therein the letter addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar by one Mahendra Singh wherein he had prayed for sanction of prosecution under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter was placed before the Standing committee and it was referred to the District Judge, Vaishali for consideration of the matter on administrative side for taking appropriate action. The petitioner was posted as Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate in the cadre of Munsif. The selection for conferring power of Assistant Sessions Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Subordiniate Judge-I) is made on the basis of seniority. Similarly for appointment to the deputation post consent of officers is obtained according to seniority. The petitioner and others refused to give consent for the said post. Therefore, the aforesaid aspect will not improve the case of the petitioner.

4-5 Initially in the case of All India Judges Association V/s. Union