COMMON ORDER

Dt. 12.05.2023.

(Per Ninala Jayasurya, J)

The issue involved in these Writ Petitions is concerning the retirement of the petitioner as Junior Civil Judge on completion of age of 50 years in public interest and the same are disposed of by this Common Order.

2. The petitioner initially worked as a steno-typist in various Courts in Guntur District. She appeared for the Judicial Services Examination for Civil Judges by way of Recruitment by Transfer in the year 2012, selected and appointed as Junior Civil Judge at Piler, Chittoor District on 18.09.2013. Her work was reviewed from time to time with reference to the reports submitted by the concerned District Judge. After review of her overall performance and track record, the High Court on the Administrative side, opined that the officer/petitioner is not of continued utility and is not fit to be continued in service beyond 50 years of age. In view of the same, the Government was requested to issue orders notifying the retirement of petitioner with effect from 31.05.2020 on attaining the age of 50 years in public interest. Accordingly after examining the matter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1280 dated 23.12.2020, notifying that the petitioner shall retire from service on the A.N. of 31.05.2020 on attaining the age of 50 years in public interest, in terms of first proviso to Section 3(1-A) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (for short ‘the Act/Act 23 of 1984’) and Rule 23 of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Rules’) and authorized the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor to draw and pay three months pay and allowances to the petitioner in lieu of notice. Challenging the said G.O., the petitioner filed W.P.No.752 of 2021.

3. Subsequently, the Government in supersession of the said G.O., dated 23.12.2020, issued G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 01.02.2021 notifying that the petitioner shall retire from service on the A.N. of 01.02.2021 on attaining the age of 50 years in public interest as the officer/petitioner is not of continued utility and not fit to be continued in service on assessment of her overall performance and track record by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in terms of the above said Act and the Rule referred to above. Challenging the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 01.02.2021, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8664 of 2021.

4. Heard Mr. A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.V.Himabindu, learned Standing Counsel representing the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary, amounts to colourable exercise of power and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India apart from violative of principles of natural justice. He submits that the petitioner’s overall performance should have been assessed on or before 10.05.2020 i.e., date of completion of 50 years of age by the petitioner, but as the same was not done and no such decision was taken by the time of attaining 50 years, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. He submits that as the review was not done before the date on which the petitioner completed 50 years of age, it shall be deemed that the review can be done only at the second stage i.e., at the time of the petitioner attaining the age of 55 years. He submits that the impugned orders are illegal since the assessment was not undertaken as mandated under proviso to Section 3(1-A) of the Act.

6. Learned counsel while emphasizing that the work review reports of the petitioner reveals that her performance both quantitatively and qualitatively was ‘good/satisfactory’, appreciated all through and there are no adverse remarks, submits that the order of compulsory retirement in such a situation, sans logic. He submits that the High Court has power to recommend compulsory retirement of a member of judicial service after examining the work, conduct and if