Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2036
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R. Subbiah, C. Saravanan, JJ.
S. Natarajan - Appellant
Vs.
Registrar General High Court Of Judicature At Madras - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 9321 of 2019; Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 9882 of 2019
Decided On : 07-08-2019
P. Wilson, Adv., T.K. Saravanan, Adv., K. Elango, Adv., V. Shanmuga Sundar, Adv.
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 309 – Employment and Service - quash the proceedings – Trial Court - learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Administrative Committee of this Court had taken a decision to permit the petitioner to continue in service beyond 58 years until he attains the age of 60 years and at the same time directed to place the matter before the Full Court of this Court for approval. Though the matter was placed before the Full Court only for a mere approval of the decision taken by the Administrative Committee, the Full Court had taken a decision to relieve the petitioner from judicial service and such a decision is not supported by any material. Therefore, according to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, such a decision taken by the Full Court is arbitrary and unreasonable and consequently, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside. The petitioner was permitted to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years by the Administrative Committee upon considering his unblemished service and pursuant to such a decision, the petitioner had rendered nearly eight months of service after completion – Held, It is vehemently contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that there is no material available to the Full Court, which resulted in the discontinuance of service of the petitioner beyond the age of 58 years. We are not inclined to accede to such submission of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. At the first blush, when the Full Court of this Court unanimously resolved not to extend the service of the petitioner beyond the age of 58 years, it cannot be subjected to judicial review. Moreover, the Full Court always will be in possession of all the requisite records in relation to the service of the petitioner, from the date of his appointment till his retirement. Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that the Full Court has taken such a decision to discontinue the service of the petitioner without any material records. In any event, such a decision taken by the Full Court cannot be re-appreciated by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. The judicial review over such decision of the Full Court is very limited. Only when there is a procedural violation in the decision making process, this Court can interfere. In this case, the Administrative Committee of this Court decided to extend the service of the petitioner beyond 58 years subject to approval of the Full Court and thereafter, it was placed before the Full Court along with the service particulars of the petitioner. After discussion on the subject, the Full Court decided not to extend the service of the petitioner beyond 58 years. We do not find any procedural violation in the decision making process to discontinue the service of the petitioner beyond the age of 58 years. Hence, judicial review over such decision taken by the Full Court is legally impermissible and consequently, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition - extension of service beyond the age of retirement i.e.,58 years is a benefit conferred on the judicial officer, subject to assessment of his or her potentiality, by forming an opinion thereof by the High Court. Hence, the petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot be permitted to seek interference of such a discretionary decision by this Court especially when there is no procedural violation in such decision making process - petition is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
R. Subbiah, J.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the proceedings dated 10.12.2018 of the first respondent, wherein and whereby, he was relieved from the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service with effect from 10.12.2018 A.N. and to consequently direct the respondents to retain his service upto the age of 60 years.
2. As per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner was initially appointed in the category of Civil Judge-Junior Division by virtue of an order passed by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.21, Home (Courts-1A) Department dated 06.01.1998 followed by a notification No.26 of 1998 passed by the first respondent in R.O.C. No.22/1998 posting the petitioner as District Munsif at Paramakudi. According to the petitioner, his service was regularised as per the order in G.O. (3D) No.289, Home (Courts-1A) Department dated 31.12.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted in various Districts and he rendered his service without any blemish. On 25.06.2009, the petitioner was promoted in the category of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and posted in various Districts, where he discharged his service meticulously without giving any room for any complaint. Further, he was appointed to the category of District Judge (Entry Level) by promotion as per G.O. Ms.No.225 dated 11.06.2015 and in that cadre, he served in various places. While the petitioner was serving as Sessions Judge, Magailr Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruvannamalai, the first respondent, by proceedings dated 17.05.2018 allowed the petitioner to continue his service beyond the age of 58 years and upto 60 years, subject to the approval of the Full Court of this Court. It is the further case of the petitioner that after getting extension of service, he was rendering his service satisfactorily with the hope that he would be permitted to continue his service till he attains the age of 60 years. While so, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, by the proceedings dated 10.12.2018, which is impugned in this writ petition, he was relieved from the services of Tamil Nadu Judicial Service with effect from 10.12.2018. The petitioner has therefore filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 10.12.2018 of the first respondent.
3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Administrative Committee of this Court had taken a decision to permit the petitioner to continue in service beyond 58 years until he attains the age of 60 years and at the same time directed to place the matter before the Full Court of this Court for approval. Though the matter was placed before the Full Court only for a mere approval of the decision taken by the Administrative Committee, the Full Court had taken a decision to relieve the petitioner from judicial service and such a decision is not supported by any material. Therefore, according to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, such a decision taken by the Full Court is arbitrary and unreasonable and consequently, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside. The petitioner was permitted to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years by the Administrative Committee upon considering his unblemished service and pursuant to such a decision, the petitioner had rendered nearly eight months of service after completion of 58 years. Thus, the petitioner-s legitimate expectation to continue in service until he attains the age of 60 years has been unreasonably denied and the non-extension of service of the petitioner, in the absence of any material, is nothing but an arbitrary exercise of power by the administrative side of the High Court. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the Administrative side of this Court ought to have evaluated the continued utility of the petitioner and taken a decision before the petitioner attains the age of 58 years and not thereafter. In this context
