Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Petitioner, Rajendra Swaroop Kashyap, has been compulsorily retired in exercise of power under Fundamental Rule 56 (in short “F.R.-56”) vide order dated 17th May, 2005 issued by the respondent No. 1 on the recommendation of the High Court. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid order dated 17th May, 2005. He has also sought a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to reinstate him as District and Sessions Judge with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and contract of service etc.

2. The facts in brief, as stated in the writ petition, giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner was selected for recruitment in U.P. Nyayik Sewa in the year 1972. He was appointed as Munsif-Magistrate and after completion of his training, was posted in District Judgeship, Banda where he joined on 22nd April, 1975. He was promoted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge in August 1983 and was further appointed by promotion in U.P. Higher Judicial Service as Additional District & Sessions Judge on 18th March, 1987. He was granted selection grade in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000 with effect from 1st January, 1986 vide order dated 8th April, 1991 and was confirmed in U.P. Higher Judicial Service vide order dated 3rd February, 1996. Selection grade in the pay scale of Rs. 18750-22850 fell due to the petitioner in 1997 but it was sanctioned vide Court’s order dated 29th September, 2004 though w.e.f. 12th September, 1997. In September 2004 the petitioner was posted as District Judge, Mahoba, wherefrom he was transferred to Hamirpur in April 2005. While working as District Judge, Hamirpur, he received the impugned order dated 17th May, 2005 retiring him compulsorily in public interest.

3. It is said that after the petitioner was promoted as District & Sessions Judge and was sanctioned selection grade in U.P. Higher Judicial Service, subsequent thereto, there is no adverse material justifying his compulsory retirement under FR 56 and, therefore, the decision to retire him pre-mature is arbitrary, based on no adverse material at all. It is said that any adverse material of the period prior to 29th September, 2004 ought not to have been considered to form opinion as to whether the petitioner should be compulsorily retired or not. Since there is no adverse material for the subsequent period, it is evident that the authorities have considered the adverse remarks prior to 29th September, 2004, it is contended that it vitiate the entire proceedings including the impugned order of compulsory retirement. To fortify his submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Apex Court’s decisions in Swami Saran Saksena v. State of U.P., AIR 1980 SC 269; Brij Behari Lal Agarwal v. Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and others, AIR 1981 SC 594; State of U.P. and another v. Lalsa Ram, (2001) 3 SCC 389; State of Gujarat v. Umed Bhai M. Patel, (2001) 3 SCC 314; D. Ramaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1982 SC 793; Madan Mohan Choudhary v. State of Bihar and others, (1999) 3 SCC 396 and Pritam Singh v. Union of India and others, 2004 (103) FLR 310 (SC) and further contended that in the past though there were certain character roll entries containing remarks about disposal of cases “below standard” or “inadequate” or “rated low” but it is said that the reasons for such lower disposal of work was always explained by the petitioner and, therefore, the same could not have been the basis to form an opinion to retire him compulsorily, particularly when for other period disposal of work by the petitioner has been found satisfactory, adequate and much higher than the prescribed standard. It is thus submitted that the aforesaid entries could not have been the basis justifying his compulsory retirement under FR 56 and, therefore, the impugned orde