JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

These two appeals, by special leave, are from the judgment dated May 20, 2005 of the High Court of judicature at Patna (for short "the High Court") whereby the Division Bench of that court allowed the Writ Petition filed by Shri Shiveshwar Narayan (for short "Judicial Officer") and quashed the communication dated July 30, 2003 and directed the High Court on its administrative side to re-evaluate the case of the Judicial Officer (petitioner therein) for extension of service up to the age of 60 years.

2. One appeal has been filed by the High Court through its Registrar General and the other by the Judicial Officer.

3. In appeal filed by the High Court, challenge is to the judgment dated May 20, 2005 whereby its communication on the administrative side dated July 30, 2003 refusing extension of service to the Judicial Officer beyond the age of 58 years has been quashed. In the other appeal, the grievance of the Judicial Officer is that on allowing the Writ Petition, the Division Bench was not justified in directing the High Court on its administrative side to re-evaluate the case of Judicial Officer for extension of service for two years.

4. In All India Judges' Association and others v. Union of India and others, (1993) 4 SCC 288 this Court directed the enhancement of the superannuation age of the judicial officers to 60 years. While directing so, this Court made it clear that the benefit of increased age to 60 years shall not be available automatically to all the judicial officers and the benefit will be available to those who, in the opinion of the respective High Courts, have a potential for continued useful service.

5. In light of the decision in All India Judges' Association, the Chief Justice of the High Court constituted the Evaluation Committee for assessment and evaluation of service record concerning sixteen judicial officers, the present Judicial Officer being one of them, to find out whether they have potential for continued useful service up to 60 years. The case of the present Judicial Officer was required to be considered for extension of service as he was attaining the age of 58 years on July 15, 2003 and by virtue of the State Government's decision dated September 29, 1973 he was entitled to work till the last date of July, 2003 only. The Evaluation Committee on consideration of the present Judicial Officer's entire service record and also having considered the quality of judgments, character rolls and other relevant material including general reputation, efficiency, integrity and honesty, finally resolved on July 10, 2003 that he was not fit for further continuance in service in public interest as he does not have the potential for continued useful service.

6. The report of the Evaluation Committee came up for consideration before the Full Court of the High Court on July 26, 2003 and the Full Court unanimously, on that day, accepted and approved the decision of the Evaluation Committee denying the benefit of increase of retirement age to the present Judicial Officer.

7. On July 30, 2003, Judicial Officer received a communication from the Registrar General of the High Court informing him that he was not being given the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 60 years.

8. The Judicial Officer challenged the Communication dated July 30, 2003 in a Writ Petition before the High Court and the Division Bench of that Court, as indicated above, by its judgment dated May 20, 2005, quashed the communication dated July 30, 2003 and further directed the High Court on its administrative side to re-evaluate his case for extension from 58 to 60 years.

9. In para 30 of the All India Judges' Association, this Court stated as follows:

".......The benefit will be available to those who, in the opinion of the respective High Courts, have a potential for continued useful service. It is not intended as a windfall for the indolent, the infirm and those of doubtful integrity, reputation and utility. The potenti