Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—The petitioner, a former Judicial Officer of Uttar Pradesh, by means of this writ petition has challenged the order dated 17.5.2005 issued by the appointing authority i.e. His Excellency the Governor (annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition) whereby he was compulsorily retired from service under Rule 56(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules on the recommendations of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Court).

2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are enumerated as under :

The Court formed a high level screening committee comprising of five Hon’ble Judges of this Court with a view to screen the Judicial Officers who had attained the age of 50 years. The Committee took into account the entire material on service record, character roll, or confidential reports of 542 Judicial Officers, who on 31.3.2005 had attained the age of 50 years. The Committee submitted its report dated 2.4.2005 that 28 Judicial Officers including the petitioner be retired compulsorily. The report of the Screening Committee dated 2.4.2005 was placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice, who directed that the report be placed before the Full Court in its meeting held on 30.4.2005.

3. The Full Court in its unanimous decision recommended compulsory retirement of several judicial officers including the petitioner under Rule 56(c) of the Fundamental Rules. The appointing authority i.e. His Excellency the Governor issued order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner vide its office memorandum dated 17.5.2005. This order is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. It appears that the petitioner had passed several orders in criminal cases arising out of Case Crime No. 115 of 2003 under section 392 IPC Police Station Kaptanganj, District Kushi Nagar. A complaint was made to the Court and after obtaining explanation of the petitioner, he was placed under suspension and a departmental enquiry was initiated. The entire thrust of the petitioner is that he had passed reasonable and logical orders in view of the papers and materials placed before him and no adverse departmental action should have been taken on the basis of perceived wrong orders. It appears that the petitioner believes that he has been compulsorily retired on account of a single lapse.

5. The petitioner has further claimed that overall remarks about his service history are overwhelming in his favour and materials considered for his compulsory retirement are not sufficient for passing of the impugned order. He has further submitted that some of the annual remarks were not in fact adverse and at least one adverse remark said to have been considered for his compulsory retirement had not been communicated to him for explanation.

6. The petitioner has also claimed that Rule-2 of the Judicial Officers (Retirement on Superannuation) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “1992 Rules”) excludes Rule-56 of the Fundamental Rules. The petitioner has stated that judicial officers of Uttar Pradesh can only be retired after attaining the age of 58 years, if the Court finds that the service record of the judicial officer is not good. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India, (2002) (4) SCC 247. The petitioner, inter alia, has also challenged the competence of the appointing authority and High Court to compulsory retire the judicial officers of the Uttar Pradesh by exercising their powers under Rule 56 (c) of Fundamental Rules.

7. Heard Ms. Sarita Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the Court.

8. “1992 Rules” were framed pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court passed in “All India Judges Association” (supra) case which enhanced the age of superannuation of the Judicial Officers from 58 years to 60 years. By no stretch of imagination, the enactment of these rules c