Since common questions arise for consideration in the writ petitions those are decided by a common judgment.

2. W.P.(C) No. 26162 of 2010 is filed by a member of the judicial service who was working as Additional District Judge, Fast Track Manjeri. He challenges Ext. P1 issued by the Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary), High Court of Kerala on 30/07/2010, in so far as it relates to him. It is inter alia observed in Ext.P1 that the Committee headed by the Chief Justice, High Court of Kerala has assessed and evaluated the petitioner's suitability for continuance in office and the High Court after considering all relevant materials formed an opinion that he was not fit to render continued useful service beyond the age of 55 years. Hence the High Court directed his compulsory retirement from service beyond the age of 55 years. He had attained 55 years on 27/11/2009. He was asked to hand over charge of his office to the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) III Manjeri on the afternoon of 31/07/2010. Subsequently the Government issued Ext.P3 dated 11/10/2011 approving the recommendation of the High Court which is also impugned.

3. W.P.C No.30427 of 2010 is filed by a member of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service, who challenges Ext.P2, an order issued by the Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) High Court of Kerala, informing the petitioner that the High Court has decided to compulsorily retire him from service in public interest on the afternoon of 31/10/2010 which was the last day of the month on which he was to attain 55 years for the same reason as stated in Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.26162 of 2010. He was due to attain the age of 55 years on 26/10/2010. It is further indicated that the said decision has been communicated to the Government and the petitioner was directed to hand over charge as Special Judge (NDPS Act cases)/Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha to the District Judge Thodupuzha.

4. W.P.C No. 33094 of 2010 is filed by a member of the judicial service who was working as Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Manjeri, challenging Ext. P1 order to the extent it relates to him. It is the same order as Ext.P1 in W.P.C No.26162 of 2010. The petitioner was informed that the High Court has directed his compulsory retirement from service beyond the age of 55 years. He had attained 55 years on 01/11/2009. The reasons are the same as stated in the earlier two cases.

5. In all these cases the High Court has indicated that the impugned orders are passed on the basis of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the All India Judges Association v Union of India and in terms of Rule 60(aa) of Part I of Kerala Service Rules (hereinafter referred as 'KSR') and Rule 7A of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Rules,1961 (hereinafter referred as 1961 Rules')

6. The petitioners more or less have raised common contentions. According to the petitioners the impugned order of High court is void as the High Court can only recommend compulsory retirement and the power to pass such an order absolutely vests with the Governor who is the appointing authority. As per Article 233 of the Constitution when the Governor is the appointing authority the power to remove also vests with the Governor. The 1961 Rules does not give any power to the High Court to order compulsory retirement contrary to Article 233. It is further contended that the impugned order of the High Court is vitiated in so far as the assessment and evaluation contemplated under Rule 7A has not been properly carried out in the case of the petitioners before taking such a decision. It is also contended that if the petitioner's confidential records have been evaluated and assessed objectively there would have been no occasion or reason to take a view that the petitioners are not fit and eligible to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years. Petitioners also challenges Rule 7A of the 1961 Rules as being violative of Rule 60 (aa) of Part I KSR. Petitioners