Judicial officers may be retired prematurely based on performance assessments, and courts exercise limited review authority barring evidence of mala fides or procedural flaws.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19553 of 2017 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

DHARMESHKUMAR AJMALBHAI PRAJAPATI Versus HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS. SHIVANGI M RANA(7053) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS SHRUTI DHRUVE AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR COUNSEL with MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335)

for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Date : 17/09/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. Rule. Learned Advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of notice of Rule.

2. The present petition emanates from the Notification dated 30.09.2016 passed by the Legal Department notifying the premature retirement of the petitioner, who was serving as the Judge Small Cause Court, Vadodara. The name of the petitioner stands at Sr. No.2 of the Notification.

3. The petitioner, who was serving as Judge, Small Causes Court, Vadodara was retired prematurely in the public interest on attaining the age of 52 years and 03 months.

4. 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 inquiries 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 report wherein it was found that 17 Judicial Officers including the present petitioner, were required to be prematurely retired. The Committee submitted its report dated 09.08.2016 before the Chamber and a Chamber meeting was held on 27.09.2016 and the report of the Committee was accepted and accordingly, the names of 17 Judicial Officers, including the petitioner, 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 in the issuance of a Notification dated 30.09.2016 approving the recommendations of the High Court for prematurely retiring the petitioner from service.

SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

5. Learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar appearing for the petitioner 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 the Rule 20 of the Rules of 2005 and, in juxtaposition, has read the definition of the Government and the Governor, which i