Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1898

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, R. T. VACHHANI, JJ.
Atul Trikambhai Kanani – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 18969 of 2017 With R/Special Civil Application No. 21171 of 2017 With R/Special Civil Application No. 21172 of 2017
Decided On : 04-09-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav A Vyas.
For the Respondents : Mr Aakash Gupta, AGP, Mr Shalin Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr Hamesh C. Naidu.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav A Vyas.
For the Respondents:Mr Aakash Gupta, AGP, Mr Shalin Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr Hamesh C. Naidu.

Compulsory retirement of judicial officers is lawful under administrative discretion, based on performance assessments, without necessitating a personal examination by the Governor.

Headnote:(A) Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 - Rule 21 - Premature retirement of judicial officers - Notification dated 30-09-2016 for compulsory retirement of petitioners based on poor performance reviews from 2011 to 2016 as constituted by a committee - High Court’s authority confirmed, Governor's approval deemed valid; the order was not a punishment, but in the interest of public service. (Paras 1, 12, 30, 33)

(B) Judicial review - The court upholds limited scope of review over administrative decisions by the High Court regarding compulsory retirement, affirming the necessity of preserving integrity in judicial service. (Paras 29, 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, serving as Judicial Officers, were prematurely retired by the State Government following poor performance evaluations. The Central Committee of Judges recommended this action after considering their service records for insufficient disposals over five years.

Findings of Court:
The decision for premature retirement was found to comply with the standards prescribed for such actions, reflecting on the officers' performance appropriately.

Issues: The legality of the Notification's authority and the process followed for the premature retirement recommendations was addressed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that the process involving the High Court's recommendation followed by the Governor's approval is lawful and does not require the Governor’s personal evaluation.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The present group of petitions emanates from the Notification dated 30.09.2016 passed by the Legal Department compulsorily retiring the petitioners, who were serving as Judicial Officers in the State of Gujarat. The name of the respective petitioners’ figure at Sr. Nos.4, 3, and 1 of the Notification.

2. The facts of the petitioners are as under:-

Sr. No.	Case No.	Date of Special Constituted Committee’s Report	Date of Chamber Meeting Decision	Date of the impugned Notification	Age of the petitioner at the time of the Notification	Date of Order on the Review Application	Remarks
1.	SCA No.18969 of 2017 Mr.Atul Trikambhai Kanani	01.04.2016	14.07.2016	30.09.2016	52 years, 8 months (Calculated as per D.O.B.)	N.A.	It was found that the grading for disposals were becoming poorer, from Adequate to Just Adequate to Poor especially in the last five years (Page No.39)
2.	SCA No.21171 of 2017 Mr.Shakilah med Abdulsattar Shaikh	01.04.2016	14.07.2016	30.09.2016	53 years, 3 months (Calculated as per D.O.B.)	N.A.	It was found that the grading for disposals were becoming poorer, from Adequate to Just Adequate to Poor especially in the last five years (Page No.54)
3.	SCA No.21172 of 2017 Mr.Jaykant N. Dave	01.04.2016	14.07.2016	30.09.2016	51 years, 8 months (Calculated as per D.O.B.)	N.A.	It was found that the grading for disposals were becoming poorer, from Adequate to Just Adequate to Poor especially in the last five years (Page No.57)

3. The exercise of evaluation of the potential of the Judicial Officers in the entire Country before attaining the age of 50 years or 55 years was undertaken in view of the communication dated 14.10.2008 written by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to all the High Courts. Accordingly, the High Court on the administrative side undertook an exercise for examining the performance of the Judicial Officers of the State of Gujarat by verifying the service records, such as Annual Confidential Reports, disposals, complaints, vigilance complaints and departmental inquiry etc. and accordingly, the Committee of three Hon’ble High Court Judges was formed, which had undertaken the necessary exercise of verification of the service records, and ultimately, the Committee filed its reports, wherein it was found that 17 Judicial Officers, including the present petitioners, were required to be prematurely retired. The Committee submitted its report dated 01.04.2016, before the Chamber, and the Chamber Meeting was held on 14.07.2016, and the Report of the Committee was accepted, and accordingly, the names of 17 Judicial Officers including the petitioners, were recommended to the State Government to retire them prematurely under the provisions of Rule 21 of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 (for short, “the Rules of 2005”) by giving three months’ pay in lieu of notice. The said recommendations were accepted, and the Governor approved the same, and ultimately, it culminated into the issuance of Notification dated 30.09.2016 approving recommendations of the High Court for prematurely retiring the petitioners from service.

SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS :

4. Learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the impugned Notification dated 30.09.2016 is without authority of law, since the same was passed on the recommendation made by the High Court to the Government of Gujarat and not to the Governor. He has referred to the provisions of Rule 20 of the Rules of 2005 and, in juxtaposition, has read the definition of the Government and the Governor, which is incorporated in Rule 2(b) and 2(c), respectively. It is submitted that since the Notification issued by the State Government, though it is in the name of the Governor, the Governor had no occasion to examine the recommendation sent by the High Court. Thus, it is urged that the petitioners could not have been retired prematurely in the absence of the Governor in his personal capacity.

5. In this regard, learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav