Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 339 (KAR)

S. INDUDHARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2000-05-25

V.BHASKARA RAO, V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2000
GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in these Writ Petitions were all Judicial Officers in the subordinate judiciary. While working, they have rendered service in various capacities. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Review Petition No. 249/92 on 24. 8. 1993, the petitioners had been compulsorily retired under the impugned notifications on their attaining 58 years of age in terms of Rule 95 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions urging various grounds. Petitioners claim that they should have been continued in service upto the age of 60 years. ( 2 ) WHEN these matters came up for consideration before one of the learned Single Judge, the Judge fell that the issues raised in these Writ Petitions are issues of public importance and having opined so, he referred these matters to a Division Bench under section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act by an order dated ( 3 ) 3. 1999. That is how these matters had been posted before us. 3. Statement of objections are filed on behalf of the respondents justifying the impugned notifications and praying for dismissal of the writ Petitions. ( 4 ) ALL the contentions raised in the Writ Petitions and traversed in the counter statement and all the decisions relied upon in support of the respective cases, need not be gone into as these Writ Petitions have become infructuous. Admittedly the petitioners had been compulsorily retired from service in the year 1996 itself. Even if they had been continued in service they would have retired in the year 1998 in the normal course. That period was over long ago. Hence, the prayer of the petitioners to direct the respondents to continue them in service no longer survive for consideration and the same has become infructuous. ( 5 ) FROM the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that in terms of the directions issued by the supreme Court in the decision reported in ALL INDIA JUDGES association vs UNION OF INDIA in the matter of continuing the judicial Officers in service beyond 58 years, the Full Court has considered the case of the petitioners for their continuance in service beyond their normal age of superannuation. After an objective assessment of their case, the Full Court recommended to retire them compulsorily from service. After an objective assessment of their case, the Full Court recommended to retire them compulsorily from service. Based on such recommendation, the impugned notifications had been issued compulsorily retiring the petitioners from service. ( 6 ) WE have perused the records relating to the petitioners. We are satisfied that a Screening Committee had been constituted to consider the continuance or otherwise of the judicial officers beyond 58 years. The said Committee in its Resolution dated 22. 9. 1993 had fixed the following norms and guidelines for deciding whether a judicial officer should be continued or not beyond the age of 58 years:-"1. Confidential records of the judicial officer for the immediate last 5 years: 2. The statement of quantum of work turned out by the officer for the immediate last 5 years; 3. Medical Certificate from a District Surgeon about physical litness of the officer to continue in service upto 60 years; 4. Complaints/petitions against the Judicial Officer in the last 5 years; 5. Any imposition of penalty against" the officer in any departmental inquiry/inquiries against the officer during his service; and 6. Information, if any, regarding general reputation of the officer". After perusing" the records, we are fully satisfied that the Full Court has considered the case of the petitioners in accordance with the norms and guidelines fixed by the committee and took decision not to continue the petitioner in service beyond 58 years. There is nothing wrong in the decision so taken and the impugned notifications issued based on such recommendation of the Full Court. ( 7 ) WE are compelled to observe that the petitioners have no statutory or vested right to claim continuance in service beyond the normal age of superannuation. As per the law laid down by the supreme Court in the decision referred to above, it is for the administrative authority of the judiciary to decide the continuance or otherwise of a judicial officer beyond 58 years. Hence, petitioners cannot assert any right in the matter. In accordance with the dictum of the Apex Court, a Committee had been constituted and the case of each one of the petitioner was considered in accordance with the norms and guidelines prescribed and a decision was taken. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned notifications. Hence, petitioners cannot assert any right in the matter. In accordance with the dictum of the Apex Court, a Committee had been constituted and the case of each one of the petitioner was considered in accordance with the norms and guidelines prescribed and a decision was taken. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned notifications. In view of the decision of the Apex Court referred to above, the various decisions upon which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no application to the instant case. ( 8 ) WRIT Petitions are devoid of merit and the same are dismissed accordingly. ( 9 ) BEFORE parting with these matters, in our view there is no issue of public importance involved in these Writ Petitions as opined by the learned Single Judge who has referred these matters to division Bench. --- *** --- .