The Court held that the adverse entry in the petitioner's annual confidential report was unjustified, arbitrary, and based on non-existent facts. It also held that the petitioner was entitled to extension of service up to the age of 60 years and selection grade.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed for quashing the annual character roll entry given by Honble Mr. Justice R. B. Mehrotra I. J. on 16. 7. 1996. The second prayer made is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners case for selection grade from the due date and for his continuance in service till the age of 60 years uninfluenced by adverse remarks. A writ of certiorari has also been sought for quashing the order dated 12. 11. 1997 passed by the State of U. P. compulsorlly retiring the petitioner from service and to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

( 2 ) IN this writ petition, the interesting question of law Involved for determination by Judicial verdict is whether the petitioner who Joined the Higher Judicial Service on 23. 4. 1984 and whose integrity was beyond doubt according to him and judicial work was good as nothing adverse was communicated to him, all of a sudden on visit of Honble Inspecting Judge Incognito, could have been awarded adverse entry that the petitioner was enjoying stinking reputation, his Integrity was doubtful, Judicial performance was poor and unsatisfactory. The next question Involved is whether the enquiry made by the Inspecting Judge Incognito from lawyers and litigants when the lawyers were on strike regarding reputation of petitioner and other officers can be made basis to spoil the career of petitioner without any sufficient material and without concrete and cogent instances of Integrity and whether the adverse entry can be reviewed by the High Court in its supervisory Jurisdiction as it is administrative action when petitioners representation has been rejected by the Administrative Committee and on the basis of the same he has been compulsorlly retired. These are the questions which fall for Judicial consideration of this Court and require deep judicial analysis.

( 3 ) IT appears that petitioner. Joined, as already stated, U. P. Higher Judicial Service on 23. 4. 1984. He was posted as Additional Dlstt. Judge, Moradabad from June, 1992 under Sri Tej Shankar the then Dlstt. Judge. Moradabad who was later on elevated to the Bench. He was also posted under sri Bhagwandin the then Distt. Judge, Moradabad who also was elevated to the Bench later on. It may be stated that the petitioner was posted with 3 (three) Dlstt. Judges who were later on elevated to the Bench, namely, Sri N. S. Gupta, Sri Bhagwandln and Sri Tej Shankar, and according to petitioner, there was no complaint to all those 3 (three) the then Dlstt. Judges against his work and conduct.

( 4 ) IT appears that the then Inspecting Judge Moradabad Honble Mr. Justice R. B. Mehrotra conducted surprise Inspection at Moradabad Judgeship on 18th April, 1995 and annual inspection from 22nd May to 28th May, 1995. It may be mentioned at this stage that the Dlstt. Judge has written the annual confidential report of 1995 of the petitioner and nothing adverse was noticed by him. The relevant part of the said Inspection note which was received by the petitioner in December, 1995 and copy of which is attached as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, reads as under :

"the assessment of performance of the Judicial work has been done on the basis of the cases decided by the officer in the month of August, 1994. This method has been adopted for assessing the judicial performance on at random survey basis. The officer has sent the files of 13 Sessions trials and 6 ball applications for my perusal, decided by him in the month of August, 1994. In all the. sessions trials, the accused have been acquitted on the ground that the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. In Sessions Trial No. 119 of 1989, the accused have been acquitted under Sections 399/402, i. P. C. and Section 25 Arms Act. The accused has been acquitted under Section 25 of the Arms act on the ground that sanction of prosecution granted by the Dlstt. Magistrate against one accused was Illegal. What was the Illeg