Hon’ble Yashwant Varma, J.—Heard Sri P.K. Ganguly in support of the writ petition and Sri Samir Sharma on behalf of the respondents.

2. This petition lays challenge to an order dated 11.7.2006 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service at a time when he was posted as Civil Amin in the District Judgeship of Ballia and the order of the appellate authority dated 1.10.2012, rejecting the appeal/representation of the petitioner.

3. The salient facts which are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are not really in dispute.

4. From the records it appears that the petitioner was initially appointed on 10.1.1977 and upon successful completion of his probation period was confirmed on the post of Amin. He continued to function as such and spent almost 29 years in the Judgeship.

5. In 2004, the case of the petitioner for compulsory retirement was considered by a Screening Committee constituted for the said purpose. The Screening Committee upon considering the service records did not recommend his compulsory retirement. In 2006, his case appears to have been again forwarded for consideration of the Screening Committee constituted by the District Judge, Ballia and pursuant to the exercise undertaken this time around, the Screening Committee recommended the compulsory retirement of the Petitioner. Pursuant to the said report of the Committee, the District Judge by an order dated 11.7.2006 compulsorily retired the Petitioner.

6. It appears that on the basis of the Report of this very Screening Committee and by similar orders dated 11.7.2006, orders of compulsory retirement were passed against various other employees of the Judgeship also, including one Sri Syed Imam Raza who was at that time working as the Senior Administrative Officer. Sri Syed Imam Raza appears to have preferred an appeal before the Administrative Judge, Ballia who by his order dated 28.11.2006, set aside the order of compulsory retirement. It appears that the Administrative Judge formed an opinion that the Screening Committee constituted by the District Judge was not appropriately manned by the Senior Officers of the Judgeship and consequently he came to the conclusion that the orders passed by the District Judge on the basis of the so called report of the said Screening Committee could not have formed the basis for formation of an opinion by the District Judge. It was in this view of the matter that the Administrative Judge proceeded to set aside the order of compulsory retirement of Sri Syed Imam Raza.

7. Emboldened by the above, other employees who had also been compulsorily retired appear to have approached this Court challenging their orders of compulsory retirement. One such challenge travelled up to a Division Bench of this Court in Dwarika Singh v. State of U.P and others, 2010(5) ADJ 141 (DB) whereby the order of the District Judge compulsorily retiring the appellant was set aside. While allowing the Special Appeal, the Division Bench has recorded as follows :

“5. We have summoned the record of the High Court contains the decision of the Administrative Judge in the matter of Syed Imam Raza, the then Senior Administrative Officer (SAO) of Ballia Judgeship. We have perused the decision of the Administrative Judge in the matter of Syed Imam Raza, the then Senior Administrative Officer (SAO), who had been ordered to be compulsorily retired and whose departmental appeal had been allowed by the then Administrative Judge. The Administrative Judge in para of the order has made the following observations about the constitution of screening committee, which is being extracted below:

“In the matter of compulsory retirement the screening committee should have been constituted comprising some senior most judicial officers, but the District Judge constituted the screening committee consisting of an Additional District Judge and a Civil Judge (Junior Division). It also does not appeal to reason as to why senior most officers were not inducted in th