The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a fair and proper assessment of the service record of a judicial officer to determine the benefit of extended age of superannuation, and the scope of judicial review in such matters.

1. Khwaja Mohamad Qasim a member of J&K Higher Judicial Service—re#31;spondent No. 1 herein, was vide High Court Order No. 527 of 23rd October, 2002 denied benefit of extension in age of retirement up to 60 years and retired on superannuation on his attaining age of 58 years.

2. Aggrieved with the order No. 527 dated 23rd, October 2002, respondent No. I/writ petitioner, questioned it through medium of a writ petition registered as SWP No. 1315/2002. The case set up in the writ petition was that the order of retirement was not in accordance with law, in as much as it was issued by the Registrar General, and not by the Governor as required under Rules, and was also in conflict with the observations made by the Supreme Court in Registrar of High Court of Madras v. R. Rajah AIR 1988 SC 1388. It was next contended that the appellant did not properly assess the merit of respondent No. I/writ petitioner, while according consideration to his case for extension in service up to the age of 60 years.

3. Though the respondent No. I/writ petitioner, at the time of filing the writ petition sought a writ of mandamus commanding the present appellant to allow him to continue in service up to the age of 60 years, yet the relief was later restricted to release of service benefits to the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner that he would have otherwise received had he been retained in service up to the age of 60 years.

4. The writ court on 2nd. November, 2002, framed following three questions for consideration by a larger bench of the Court:-

(I) Whether the order of retirement was supposed to be passed by the Governor of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or could it be passed by the Registrar General of the High Court?

(II) Whether on the basis of the comparative date as furnished in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the writ petition, the consideration of the petitioner was not in accordance with law?

(Ill) Whether the decision which has been taken in accordance with law and in terms of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Registrar High Court of Madras v. R. Rajjah (supra)?

5. The Division Bench of the Court heard the matter on 23rd July, 2007, held the appellant competent to issue order No. 257 impugned in the petition. However, question whether having regard to the comparative data of respondent No. I/writ petitioner and his other colleagues as set out in paras 12 and 13 of the petition, consideration was given to the writ petitioner's case for extension in accordance with law, was left to be decided by writ court.

6. The writ court on remand after highlighting the criteria to be considered by the High Court for giving the benefit in extension of service to a judicial officer in terms of Supreme Court judgement reported as AIR 1993 SC 2493 and a Full Court resolution dated 23rd. September, 1994, embarked on an exercise to give a closer look to the data/material available to the appellant, as regards respondent No. 1 and his colleague Shri Satlal Tengloo, whose case for giving benefit of extension up to the age of 60 years was also considered by the appellant while according consideration to the case of respondent No. 1. The writ court found that the case of respondent No. 1 as also that of his colleague Shri Satlal Tengloo— also a member of Higher Judicial Service, was placed before the High Court (appellant) on 28th September, 2002. The appellant granted benefit to Shri Satlal Tengloo but denied it to the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner. On examination of record the writ court found that while the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was categorised as "Good" for the years 1995-2000 i.e. available reports/ratings for six years preceding the year of consideration, in case of his colleague Shri Satlal Tengloo such ratings were Good for 1995,1999, Average for 1996,1998 and 2000 and Fair/Good for 1997. Two other colleagues of the respondent No. I/writ petitioner namely Kuldeep Singh and B. L. Bhat though categorised as Average for four out of six