Antony Dominic, J.

1. Writ Appeal Nos. 1633, 1606 and 1954 of 2013 are filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.26162, 30427 and 33094 of 2010. Writ Appeal Nos.1586, 1610 & 1585 of 2013 are filed mainly by the High Court of Kerala, aggrieved by the judgment in the writ petitions mentioned above. WA No.1587/13 is filed by the petitioner in WP(C) No.8680/12.

2. The appellant in WA.No.1633 of 2013 had filed W.P.(C)No.26162 of 2010. He was working as Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Manjeri. He attained the age of 55 on 27.11.2009. The appellant in W.A.No.1606 of 2013 was working as Special Judge (NDPS Act cases)/ Addl. District Judge, Thodupuzha and was due to attain 55 years on 26.10.2010. Similarly, the appellant in W.A.No.1954 of 2013 was also working as Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Adhoc) II, Thodupuzha and had attained the age of 55 years on 01.11.2009.

3. While so, the appellants in W.A.Nos.1586 & 1954 of 2013 were issued order dated 30.07.2010, whereby the Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) of the High Court conveyed to them that in accordance with the observations of the Supreme Court in the All India Judges' Association case and in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 60 (aa) of Part I KSR and Rule 7A of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Rules' for short), the committee headed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has on the basis of the record of service and performance, assessed and evaluated their suitability for continuance in service and that on such evaluation formed the opinion that they are not fit to render continued useful services. It was also stated that the High Court considered the opinion of the said committee with reference to the work and conduct of the appellants and was of the view that the aforesaid officers were not fit and eligible to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years. Accordingly, the High Court ordered that the appellants were not fit and eligible to continue in service beyond the age of 55 years and that they would be compulsorily retired in public interest on the afternoon of 31.07.2010.

4. Similarly, in so far as the appellant in W.A.No.1606 of 2013 is concerned, he was also issued order dated 22.09.2010, stating that he was due to attain 55 years of age on 26.10.2010 and that the High Court had assessed and evaluated his suitability for continuance for judicial service beyond the age of 55 years and formed the opinion that he was not fit to render continued useful service beyond 55 years. He was further informed that therefore the High Court had decided that he be compulsorily retired in public interest on the afternoon of 31.10.2010. In this order, it was also stated that the decision of the High Court has already been communicated to the Government.

5. Subsequently, G.O.(Rt) No.2993/2011/Home, dated 11.10.2011 was issued by the Government of Kerala informing that the Government had examined the matter in detail and found that the compulsory retirement of the judicial officers ordered by the High Court are in accordance with Rule 7A of the Special Rules. Accordingly, the Government ordered that the action of the High Court in having made the judicial officers to compulsorily retire from the Kerala Higher Judicial Service invoking the power conferred by Article 235 of the Constitution of India and also under the special rules is approved. It was also clarified that the said order had the approval of his Excellency the Governor of Kerala.

6. It was challenging the above proceedings that the appellants had filed the three writ petitions mentioned above. The writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment rendered on 23rd August 2013. In this judgment, the learned Single Judge accepted the contention that the Governor of the State being the appointing authority alone could have compulsorily retired the appellants and on that basis quashed the orders issued by the High Court on the administrativ