THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO.32506 OF 2012 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda)

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare G.O.Ms.No.105 Law (LA&SC F), dated 25.09.2012, and consequential proceedings issued by this Court vide Order ROC No.5032/2012-B.Spl., dated 26.09.2012, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and, consequently to set aside the same by directing the respondents to grant Selection Grade Post of District and Sessions Judge to the petitioner by expunging all the adverse remarks recorded against him.

2. The brief facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Civil Judge on 07.10.1985 and in the year 1995 he was promoted as Senior Civil Judge and he was further promoted to the post of District and Sessions Judge with effect from 01.07.2002. He has completed 27 years of service as a Judge and he was at the verge of extension of his service for a period of two years from the age of 58 years to 60 years. It is the case of the petitioner that the services rendered by him up to 01.07.2011, his name was shown at Sl.No.48 in the seniority list, whereas in the list published up to 01.01.2012, his name was shown at Sl.No.52.

3. It is further case of the petitioner that during his past service i.e., 27 years, he was not served with any communication indicating deficiency of his services. However, at the verge of his retirement, though he was eligible for promotion to Selection Grade Post, he was not given promotion. It is further stated that respondent No.2 issued communication on 19.08.2011 alleging that as there were adverse entries recorded against him in the Annual Confidential Reports for the year 2009, he was denied promotion. However, proceedings dated 08.08.2011, were issued promoting some of the District and Sessions Judges to Selection Grade post and as the petitioner was not given promotion to Selection Grade post, he submitted a detailed representation on 27.10.2011. In spite of acknowledging the said representation, no orders were passed on the said representation.

4. It is further stated that after lapse of 58 years of service, adverse remarks noted against the petitioner in the Annual Confidential Report were communicated to him on 07.06.2012 with a direction to submit his explanation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of said communication. The petitioner submitted his explanation in detail on 15.06.2012.

5. It is further stated that without considering the said explanation, respondent No.2 communicated the order passed by this Court vide Roc.No.1769/2012-B.Spl, dated 24.08.2012, informing the petitioner that the Government issued G.O.Ms.105 LAW (LA&J) SC.F) Department, dated 25.09.2012, recommending for compulsory retirement on completion of 58 years i.e., on 30.09.2012 A.N. by the petitioner.

6. It is further stated that the said communication calling for explanation pointing out the alleged lapses communicated after a lapse of decades. In the year 1995 the petitioner was first promoted to the higher post thereafter District and Sessions Judge on 01.07.2002, at that time his service record was clean. Even if there were any adverse remarks noted against him and the same would have been communicated to him prior to issuance of promotion to the Selection Grade post. However, at the fag end of his service, the respondents cannot deny his Selection Grade Post and extend two years of service after completion of 58 years of age and, therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned G.O.

7. Respondent No.2 filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the petition and contended that the remarks of the Administrative Committee Meeting of the Hon’ble Judges and the remarks of the Portfolio Judges of t