The High Court has discretionary power to extend the services of judicial officers based on their performance and personal records, in the interest of public service.

N. Kirubakaran, J.

This writ petition is filed to call for the records of the first respondent vide R.O.C.2A/2004-Con.B2 dated 15. 2006 and quash the same and direct the respondents to extend the petitioner’s service upto the age of 60 years.

The facts of the case are as follows:

2. The petitioner was selected for the post of District Munsif by TNPSC in the year 1976 and he was appointed for the post of Rent Controller on 30.11.1977 and he served in the Court of Small Causes till 14. 1978. Subsequently, he served as District Munsif Dindigul from April 1978 to December 1979 and as Sub Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram from December 1979 to May 1983.

3. Thepetitioner was posted as Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai from May 1983 to April 1986 and thereafter he was promoted as Subordinate Judge and posted as Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras and served there from April 1986 to April 1988. The petitioner thereafter was deputed to function in the post of Chairman, Taxation Appeals committee, Madurai Corporation from April 1988 to May 1991. Again, he was posted as Assistant Judge in the City Civil Court, Madras and served from Judge 1991 to May 1993 and thereafter he was transferred to Devakottai as Sub Judge and served as subordinate Judge at Ranipet from May 1993 to August 1993. Subsequently, he was posted as subordinate Judge at Ranipet from August 1993 to April 1995. He worked as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur from April 1995 to April 1997.

4. Thepetitioner was promoted as District Judge on 11. 1995 and the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate was upgraded as District Judge and he continued there till 30.4.1997 and thereafter he was posted as Presiding Officer, Labour Court from May 1997 to December 1999.

5. The petitioner, subsequently, was posted as Registrar, State Human Rights Commission, Chennai from December 1999 to September 2001. He served as Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Kumbakonam at Thanjavur from September 2001 to April 2002 and subsequently, he worked as Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai from May 2002 to December 2003 and was transferred as Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras from February 2004 and retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation. The petitioner was denied the benefits of extension of service till 60th year as per the Administrative decision of the High Court which was communicated to him as per R.O.C. 2A/2004-Con.B2 dated 11. 2004. The petitioner also filed an appeal and review petition before the Government and thereafter writ petitioner filed W.P. No.39845 of 2005 and W.P.No.39846 of 2005 challenging the validity of the amendment of the Fundamental Rules 56(1) made by the State Government. The writ petition W.P. No.39846 of 2005 was dismissed on 30.1.2006. W.P.No.39845 of 2005 was filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 11. 2004 and consequent order of the first respondent dated 7. 2005 against the petitioner’s representation dated 16. 2005 issued to the petitioner and quash the same and direct the respondents to extend the petitioner’s service upto 60 years.

6. The main contention of the petitioner in the said writ petition was that he had good record and therefore, non extension of service of the petitioner beyond 58 is not in accordance with law with the decision of the Supreme Court All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others AIR 1993 SC 2493. He further contended that the decision not to accord benefit of service upto 60 years of age is not based on any material and it was an arbitrary decision unfairly arrived at.

7. The first respondent filed a counter denying the contentions of the petitioner and stated that the case of the petitioner had been considered by the Full Court and it was decided not to extend the service of the petitioner beyond the age of 58 and such order was not arbitrary and does not call for any interference. The Division Bench of this Court hea