ORDER 1. The petitioner was a member of the Superior Judicial Service in this State. He was made to retire on reaching the age of 58 years, the statutory age of superannuation, as the High Court declined to allow him the benefit of extension of the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years in terms of the judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association & ors. Vs. The Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288 . The petitioner seeks to challenge the decision of the High Court, denying him the benefit of the extended age of retirement which was communicated to him by the Registrar General of this Court by his letter no. 19569/Apptt., dated December 6/7, 1999 (Annexure 2). He further seeks a consequential direction for reconsideration of his case for being allowed to continue in service till the age of 60 years. 2. It may be stated at the outset that about two and a half years before evaluating his case for the purpose of extension of the age of retirement, the High Court had taken the decision to have him compulsorily retired from service. On the basis of the recommendation by the High Court the State Government duly issued the order retiring him compulsorily from service in terms of rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code, 1952. The petitioner having unsuccessfully challenged the order of his compulsory retirement before the High Court on its judicial side took the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by judgment and order passed in Civil Appeal No. 787/1999 (Madan Mohan Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar : (1999) 3 SCC 396 ) found and held that : "....... the impugned action of compulsorily retiring the appellant from service cannot but be termed as arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person could have come to the conclusion that the appellant had outlived his utility as a Judicial Officer and had become a dead wood which had to be chopped of." 3. It accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner and quashed the order of his compulsory retirement issued by the State Government. 4. It accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner and quashed the order of his compulsory retirement issued by the State Government. 4. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of compulsory retirement of the petitioner was required to be mentioned at the beginning as it has a deep bearing on this case but having done so I think that it would be best to proceed from the beginning and to fake note of the events in their turn. That would help in putting the whole matter in its proper perspective. 5. The date of birth of the petitioner is 10.2.1942, that is to say, he attained the age of 58 years on 10.2.2000 and will reach the age of 60 years on 10.2.2002. He joined the State's judicial service as Munsif on 15.5.1975 and was confirmed on that post with effect from 8.2.1980. He was promoted to the rank of Subordinate Judge on 16.5.1985 and was confirmed as Subordinate Judge with effect from 19.1.1988. On 15.7.1991 he was promoted to the superior judicial service and was posted as Addl. District Judge. 6. On 14.11.1995 while working as District & Sessions Judge, Incharge, Madhubani, he granted anticipatory bail to five persons, accused in a case under Section 307 of the Penal Code. The anticipatory bail order passed by the petitioner was challenged before this Court in a petition for cancellation of bail, being Cr. Misc. No. 18207 of 1995. An Hon'ble Judge of this court before whom the Criminal Misc. petition was placed was acutely unhappy with the order granting anticipatory bail to the accused and saw it as gross indiscretion by the petitioner. Accordingly, by order, dated 26.3.1996 the Hon'ble Judge directed the office-to put up this matter on administrative side so that the conduct of the officer, who granted anticipatory bail, may be examined. The office will also disclose the name of the Sessions Judge I/C; who passed the order on 14.11.1995". The Criminal Misc. Petition was finally disposed of by the same Hon'ble Judge by order, dated 22.7.1996. By that order anticipatory bail granted to two of the accused was cancelled but the anticipatory bail order was left undisturbed in respect of the other three accused. The Criminal Misc. Petition was finally disposed of by the same Hon'ble Judge by order, dated 22.7.1996. By that order anticipatory bail granted to two of the accused was cancelled but the anticipatory bail order was left undisturbed in respect of the other three accused. In that order, this court also made observations severely deprecating the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused by the petitioner. 7. As directed by the earlier order, dated 26.3.1996 passed in the Criminal Misc. Petition the matter was put up before the Standing Committee of the High Court in its meeting held on 6.11.1996 when the Standing Committee asked the office to put up a note for having the petitioner retired from service compulsorily under rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code. As desired by the Standing Committee the office prepared the note which was put up before the Standing Committee in its meeting dated 21.11.1996. It appears that in that meeting the Standing Committee considered the question of compulsory retirement of four judicial officers, including the present petitioner and on a consideration of the service records of each of them it was resolved that it was not in public interest to retain their services any longer and they should, therefore, be retired compulsorily from service under rule 74 (b) (ii) of the Bihar Service Code. Having thus resolved, the Standing Committee directed that its decision be placed before the full Court, which was scheduled to meet on November 30, 1996, as required under rule 3(x) of Chapter I, Part 1 of the High Court Rules. 8. At this stage another significant development took place. Till then there were no entries in the character roll of the petitioner for the years, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. (To be fair it may be stated that regretably similar was the position in respect of a large number of other judicial officers). It was around this time that entries were made in the petitioner's character roll, all at one time, for the aforesaid three years classifying him as Category C' (below average) officer. (To be fair it may be stated that regretably similar was the position in respect of a large number of other judicial officers). It was around this time that entries were made in the petitioner's character roll, all at one time, for the aforesaid three years classifying him as Category C' (below average) officer. The Supreme Court in its decision on the petitioner's compulsory retirement, has expressed noticed that the date on which those entries were made was not indicated either in the original record or in the counter affidavit that was filed on behalf of the High Court, but it was clear that those entries were recorded at a stage when the Standing Committee had already made up its mind to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service. 9. The entries, thus made all at one time in his character roll, for the years, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 were communicated to him by letter no. 9500, issued by the Registrar General of this Court on 29.11.1996. 10. On the following day (30.11.1996) the Full Court met and gave its approval to the decision of the Standing Committee, dated 21.11.1996 to compulsorily retire from service four judicial officers, including the petitioner. The Full Court also decided that the Government be requested to give three months pay in advance to the tour officers (including the petitioner) recommended for compulsory retirement in lieu of three months' notice to them. The Full Court further directed that the concerned District & Sessions Judge be asked to relieve the officers recommended for retirement of all their judicial work. 11. On the basis of the recommendation made by the High Court the State Government duly issued an order, dated 2.8.1997 by which the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service with effect from 15.8.1997 or from the date of service of the order whichever begin earlier. 12. It may also be noted here that on 20.2.1997 the petitioner made a representation before the High Court against the entries made in his character roll for the years, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94, making a prayer that his classification as Class 'C' officer may be set aside. The High Court rejected the petitioner's representation on 12.12.1997. 13. The petitioner sought to challenge the order of his compulsory retirement before the High Court in CWJC No. 11184 of 1997 but it was dismissed by order, dated 22.7.1998. The High Court rejected the petitioner's representation on 12.12.1997. 13. The petitioner sought to challenge the order of his compulsory retirement before the High Court in CWJC No. 11184 of 1997 but it was dismissed by order, dated 22.7.1998. The petitioner took the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. (Civil) no.16997 of 1998, giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 787 of 1999. Before the Supreme Court it was stated on behalf of the High court that its decision to have the petitioner compulsorily retired from service was based on appraisal of his entire service record and the Supreme Court in its decision has gone to the lengths of reproducing the entire service record of the petitioner. Later, in this judgment it will be required to examine the petitioner's service record more closely but here it would suffice to note that the petitioner's service record/materials laid out before the Supreme court for justifying the decision for his compulsory retirement from service can be divided into three parts. The 1st part comprised the entries made in the petitioner's character roll from the beginning of his career in the year 1975 upto the year 1990. These were the entries made by the different District Judges under whom the petitioner worked as a Munsif and then as a Sub Judge and the confidential remarks given by different Hon'ble Judges of this court in course of inspection of the stations where he was posted from time to time. The second part comprised the entries classifying him as Class' C' (below average) officer for the year, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94, all made 'at one go' (as was the expression used in the counter affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on behalf of the High Court) and the third material/circumstance was the episode of grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner as noted earlier in this judgment. 14. 14. As regards the first part consisting of the entries in the petitioner's character roll from the year 1975 to the year 1990, the Supreme Court held (see para 40 of the judgment) that any decision on the basis of these entries to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service' cannot but be termed as arbitrary in the sense that no reasonable person could have come to the conclusion that the appellant had out-lived his utility as a Judicial Officer and had become dead wood which had to be chopped of. 15. As regards the episode regarding the grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner, the Supreme court observed as follows : "The grant of anticipatory bail in a case under Section 307 IPC particularly when there was a cross-case could not have been legally made the basis of compulsory retirement in the particular circumstances of this case. Whatever might have been the feeling of the learned Judge who entertained and ultimately allowed the petition for cancellation of bail granted by the appellant, the fact remains that it was an order passed on the judicial side in all bona fides. It may have been a wrong order but it was not a motivated order based on extraneous considerations. It was thus a case where there was no material on the basis of which an opinion could have been reasonably formed that it would be in the public interest to retire the appellant from service prematurely in terms of Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code." (emphasis added) 16. As regards the adverse entries for three years which were inserted in the petitioner's character roll simultaneously and all at one time, the Supreme Court repeatedly disapproved both the manner in which those entries were recorded and the action of the High Court in taking them into consideration for arriving at the decision to have the petitioner compulsorily retired from service. In para 31 of the judgment it was observed as follows : "The entries for three years were recorded at one time simultaneously and the appellant was categorized as a C' Grade Officer. The expression used by the High Court in the counter affidavit filed in this court in relation to the entries for the aforesaid three years is that they were recorded "at one go". And, we may add, the officer was made to go. The expression used by the High Court in the counter affidavit filed in this court in relation to the entries for the aforesaid three years is that they were recorded "at one go". And, we may add, the officer was made to go. The date on which these entries were made is not indicated either in the original record or in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. These were communicated to the appellant on 29.11.1996 and were considered by the Full Court on 30.11.1996 but it is clear that these entries were recorded at a stage when the Standing Committee had already made up its mind to compulsorily retire the appellant from service as it had directed the office on 6.11.1996 to put up a note for compulsory retirement of the appellant. The High Court should have considered that all entries prior to his promotion to the Superior Judicial Service were not bad and his integrity either as a member of the Inferior Judicial Service or Superior Judicial Service was never doubtful." And again in para 33 of the judgment, it was held as follows : "The entries recorded "at one go" for the three years, namely, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 could hardly have been taken into consideration They were communicated to the appellant on 29.11.1996 and on the next day, namely, 30.11.1996, the Full Court took the decision to retire him from service without giving any opportunity to him to make a representation which, however, he did make but had the mortification of seeing it rejected a year later in December, 1997." And yet again in para 40 it was observed and held as follows : "In the instant case, the adverse remarks, namely, the remarks for the years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 were not recorded in the "normal course" but were recorded "at one go" and that too when the Standing Committee of the High Court had already formed an opinion to compulsorily retire the appellant from service. The representation made against these remarks was not dealt with promptitude but was disposed of by the High Court after a long period of one year. These remarks which were recorded in the character roll of the appellant "at one go" and were communicated to the appellant on 29.11.1996, were considered by the Full Court on 30.11.1996 which approved the proposal of compulsorily retiring the appellant from service. These remarks which were recorded in the character roll of the appellant "at one go" and were communicated to the appellant on 29.11.1996, were considered by the Full Court on 30.11.1996 which approved the proposal of compulsorily retiring the appellant from service. The appellant had been categorised as ‘B' plus in 1990 by Mr. Justice B.K. Roy. There was no categorisation for the next three years <MU>and when the action for compulsory retirement of the appellant was initiated by the High Court on the ground that he had granted anticipatory bail in a case under Section 307 I.P.C., categorisation for 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 was "at one go" which is unreasonable and not fair. Moreover the compulsory retirement was ordered in 1996. What was the appellant's categorisation for 1994-95 and 1995-96 is not indicated in the original service record placed before us. It is on account of these abnormalities coupled with the other strange circumstances of this Case that <MU>we are of the opinion that the categorisation of the appellant as a ‘C’ Class Officer for the years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 could not have been legally taken into consideration." (emphasis added) 17. Thus, the indictment of the entries made in the petitioner's character roll for the years, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 was complete and total. 18. The Supreme Court then proceeded to hold that once the episode of the grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner and the adverse entries for the three years were put out of consideration, what remained were the entries in the petitioner's character roll from the year 1975 to the year 1990 and on that basis certainly no reasonable person could come to the conclusion that the petitioner had outlived his utility as a Judicial Officer and had become dead wood which had to be chopped off. The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the petitioner's appeal, set aside the order of the High Court dismissing his writ petition and quashed the order dated 2.8.1997 issued by the State Government compulsorily retiring him from service. 19. Following the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court the petitioner was reinstated in service and was posted as Additional District Judge. Arrah where he resumed his duties on 1.4.1999. 19. Following the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court the petitioner was reinstated in service and was posted as Additional District Judge. Arrah where he resumed his duties on 1.4.1999. As he was to reach the age of 58 years on 10.2.2000, he was asked, by letter, dated 16.9.1999, to exercise his option to continue in service till the age of 60 years, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in All India Judges, Association Case. By letter, dated 20.9.1999 he indicated his willingness to continue in service till the age of 60 years. 20. Shortly thereafter on 4.10.1999 an inspection was made by an Hon'ble Judge of the Court who was the nominated Inspecting Judge of that district and who gave his inspection note concerning the petitioner. 21. The case of the petitioner along with twenty five other judicial officers was finally put up before the Evaluation Committee for consideration whether they had the potential for continued useful service for being retained in service beyond 58 years of age. The Evaluation Committee professedly considered the entire records of service, character roll, quality of judgment and other relevant matters, including the general reputation regarding efficiency, integrity and honesty of the concerned judicial officers and came to the view that the petitioner (and three others) did not have the potential for continued useful service and hence, their further continuance in service would not be in public interest and accordingly, took the decision not to allow them the benefit of the extended age of retirement. 22. The decision of the Evaluation Committee was put up before the Full Court in its meeting held on 20.11.1999 and the Full Court accepted and approved the decision of the Evaluation Committee not to grant the benefit of extension of the age of retirement to the petitioner and three others. The High Court's decision was communicated to the petitioner by the Registrar General by his letter no. 19569, dated December 6/7, 1999 and the petitioner was, thus, made to retire from service in the month of February, 2000 on reaching the age of 58 years. 23. In this writ petition he questions the decision of the High Court not to allow him the benefit of the extended age of retirement. 19569, dated December 6/7, 1999 and the petitioner was, thus, made to retire from service in the month of February, 2000 on reaching the age of 58 years. 23. In this writ petition he questions the decision of the High Court not to allow him the benefit of the extended age of retirement. According to him the High Court's decision was quite arbitrary, unreasonable and fanciful and there could be no justification for it having regard to the materials on record. 24. This leads to the question what were the materials on record which were permissible for the High Court to take into consideration for making an evaluation and assessment of the petitioner for the purpose of allowing him the extended age of retirement and what were the materials which the High Court did in fact take into consideration for the purpose. The only source that throws any light on the question what were the materials which were in fact taken into consideration as also the material which was evidently left out of amount is nothing but the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court. Paras 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit make a reference to the entries made in the petitioner's annual character roll from 1975-76 to 1993-94 and to the remarks made by the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge of this Court for the years 1984, 1987, 1988 and 1990. A copy of the character roll containing the entries from 1975-76 to 1993-94 is enclosed as Annexure 'A'. Similarly copies of the inspection notes of the Hon'ble Judges of this court for the afore-mentioned four years are enclosed as Annexure' B' series to the counter affidavit. 25. Para 10 of the counter affidavit deals with the materials/circumstances other than the entries made in the character roll and the remarks given by the Hon'ble Inspecting Judges of this court. Sub paras A, B.i, B.ii and B.iii of para 10 refer to some allegation petitions (anonymous or otherwise) against the petitioner which were eventually closed without any action being taken; Sub paras C and D refer to some bail orders passed by the petitioner but those two matters were also closed without any action being taken. Sub para E of para 10 of the counter affidavit refers in detail to the episode of the grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner referred to earlier in this judgment. Sub para E of para 10 of the counter affidavit refers in detail to the episode of the grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner referred to earlier in this judgment. Sub para F of para 10 of the counter affidavit refers to some observations made by another Hon'ble Judge of this Court deprecating certain observations made by the petitioner in his judgment and order passed in a title appeal. Those observations were made in the judgment and order, dated 29.11.1996 but before that the Standing Committee had already taken a, decision in its meeting, dated 22.11.1996 to have the petitioner compulsorily retired and at that time, therefore, those were simply put on the petitioner's service record and those 1 observations were finally taken into account at the time of considering him for giving the benefit of the extended age of retirement. 26. The counter affidavit plainly cites the entries for the years, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94, classifying the petitioner as category' C' officer, which were recorded in his character roll simultaneously at one time and the episode regarding the grant of anticipatory bail by him as still forming part of his service records which were evidently taken into account for his evaluation for grant of the extended age of retirement. (See para 8 read with Annexure 'A' and para 10.E of the counter affidavit). After having come in for such severe indictment by the Supreme Court as noted above, I fail to see how the adverse entries for the three years in question and the episode of the grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner can be said to be forming part of his service records and can be taken into consideration for any purpose, including his evaluation for granting the extended age of retirement. It may be recalled that the Supreme court had observed that the entries for the three years were recorded at the stage when the Standing Committee had already made up its mind to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service. Bluntly put the Supreme Court had found that those entries were not made objectively and in the normal course of administration. Further, the Supreme Court had repeatedly observed (see paras 33 and 44 of the Supreme court judgment) that the petitioner's classification as Class' C' officer for the three years in question could not have been legally taken into consideration. Bluntly put the Supreme Court had found that those entries were not made objectively and in the normal course of administration. Further, the Supreme Court had repeatedly observed (see paras 33 and 44 of the Supreme court judgment) that the petitioner's classification as Class' C' officer for the three years in question could not have been legally taken into consideration. As regards the episode of the grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner, the Supreme Court had observed that the fact remained that that was an order passed on the judicial side in all bona fides and that that order might have been a wrong order but that was not a motivated order based on extraneous considerations. In face of these observations and directions by the Supreme Court I am completely unable to see how the entries for the year 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 and the episode regarding grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner could still b0 treated as part of his service records and taken into consideration for an evaluation of his service. 27. So much for the materials which were wrongly taken into consideration in making evaluation of the petitioner's service. No less important, however, is the material which was kept out of consideration while making the evaluation. It is noted above that after the petitioner rejoined the service' on the basis of the Supreme court decision and before his case was put up for consideration before the Evaluation Committee, an inspection was made on 4.10.1999 by the nominated Inspecting Judge of the district where the petitioner was posted. In that regard, the following statement is made in para 10 of the writ petition: "...... it is further stated that after petitioner's joining, the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge of Bhojpur district inspected the case specially the performance of the petitioner in view of his coming retirement on 29th February 2000 for the purpose of fulfilling the guide lines of the Supreme Court for recommending the petitioner's name for retirement at the age of 60. The petitioner has firm belief that the report is not adverse as the same has not been communicated." 28. Curiously, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court, there is no reply given to the averment made in the writ petition as quoted above nor is there any mention of the inspection made on 4.10.1999. The petitioner has firm belief that the report is not adverse as the same has not been communicated." 28. Curiously, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court, there is no reply given to the averment made in the writ petition as quoted above nor is there any mention of the inspection made on 4.10.1999. In para 9 of the counter affidavit, where the remarks made by the different Inspecting Judges are stated, the last inspection referred to is of May, 1990. Similarly Annexure 'B' containing copies of the inspection notes ends with the inspection note of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Roy dated 28.5.1990. 29. In course of arguments it was submitted that the inspection note, dated 4.10.1999 was being withheld and we should, therefore, draw an inference adverse to the High Court. Thereupon counsel for the High Court produced before us a copy of the inspection note, dated 4.10.1999 by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P.S. Choudhary, the nominated Inspecting Judge for Bhojpur district at the material time. Some of the relevant columns from the inspection note are extracted below : "3. Are his judgment and orders well written and clearly Yes expressed? Plus (Category in which the(Good) judgments are to be placed viz. A Plus Outstanding, A Very Good, B-Plus (Good) B-Average/Satisfactory, C Below Average) 5. Is he an efficient Judicial Yes Officer? 6. Has he maintained Judicial reputation for honesty and impartiality? 10. Net result. He is a good Officer." 30. It is surprising that this inspection note, dated 4.10.1999 failed to find any mention in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court and the omission to state anything about this inspection note in the counter affidavit leaves this court with no option but to hold that the inspection note in question was not taken into account while making evaluation of the petitioner's service. 31. The importance and the value of this inspection note cannot be over-emphasised. 31. The importance and the value of this inspection note cannot be over-emphasised. The inspection was made shortly before the petitioner was to be considered for grant of the extended age of retirement and the very object and purpose of the inspection was perhaps to obtain materials opinion of the Inspecting Judge which could be useful for the Evaluation Committee in making a proper assessment and evaluation of the petitioner's service and yet this inspection note evidently did not form part of the materials taken into account for making assessment and evaluation of the petitioner's service. 32. I am, therefore, constrained to hold that the decision of the Evaluation Committee, as also of the Full Court, was vitiated both on account of taking into consideration materials which were impermissible and for not taking into account an important and relevant material, namely, the inspection note, dated 4.10.1999. 33. If one is to make the summing up concerning the service records of the petitioner after excluding (i) the three adverse entries for the years, 1991-92. 1992-93 and 1993-94 and (ii) the episode regarding grant of anticipatory bail by the petitioner and after including the inspection 'note, dated 4.10.1999, the balance would be as follows: 1974-75 (Dist. Muzaffarpur)-Quality of work-satisfactory and quantity capable of improvement. Relation with Bar-Satisfactory. 1976-77 (Dist. Muzaffarpur)-Quality of work-Satisfactory and quantity-fair. Relation with bar-Fair. 1977-78 (Dist. Gaya)-intelligent. His judgments are of average quality. Out turn is satisfactory. 1978-79-(1979-80) (Dist. Munger)-On the whole his work and conduct is average. Relationship with the members of the Bar and the Judicial Officers has been satisfactory. He is laborious and pains-taking. 1980-81-No remarks. 1981-82 (Dist. Palamau)-Intelligent and hard working. Writes good judgments, Enjoys good relation of integrity. 1982-83 (Dist. Palamau)-Carries a good reputation regarding his integrity. 1983-84 (Dist. Palamau)-Shaping well as a Judicial Officer. 1984-85 (Dist. Hazaribagh)-He has satisfactory knowledge of law and procedure. He is industrious and prompt in disposal of cases. He is an efficient officer. He has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality, An average Officer. Relation with Bar, colleagues and staff-Cordial. 1985-86(Dist. Aurangabad)-Knowledge of law and procedure satisfactory. He is industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases. He is an efficient Officer. He has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality during the period. As incharge of the Nazarat and Account, he requires to exercise more effective control. Satisfactory. Relation with Bar, colleagues and staff-Cordial. 1985-86(Dist. Aurangabad)-Knowledge of law and procedure satisfactory. He is industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases. He is an efficient Officer. He has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality during the period. As incharge of the Nazarat and Account, he requires to exercise more effective control. Satisfactory. Maintains good relation with the other Judicial officers and the Bar. 1986-87 (Dist. Aurangabad)-Knowledge of law and procedure is satisfactory. He is industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases. Disposal of the cases is satisfactory. He is an efficient officer. He writes well discussed judgments and orders, both civil and criminal. He enjoys a good reputation as an honest and impartial Officer. Good. He maintains cordial relation with other Judicial Officers and the Bar. 1987-88 (Dist. Aurangabad)-Knowledge of law and procedure satisfactory. He is industrious and prompt in disposal of the cases. Disposal satisfactory. He is an efficient Officer. None made any complaint, regarding his honesty and impartiality. He enjoys a good reputation with respect of his integrity and is laborious. Defects, if any, : No. Good. He maintains cordial relation with judicial Officers and the Bar. 1988-89 (Dist. Aurangabad)-His knowledge of law and procedure is satisfactory. He is industrious" an efficient Officer and prompt in disposal of cases. He enjoys good reputation as an honest and impartial Officer. He is fit for appointment as C.J.M. Defects-Nil., Good. He maintains cordial relation with other Judicial Officers staff and the Bar. 1989-90 (Dist. Begusarai)-Knowledge of law and procedure satisfactory. He is industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases. His supervision of distribution of business among and his control over the subordinate courts is good. He is an efficient Officer. He has maintained a reputation for honesty and impartiality. Defects, if any-No. Very frequently he loses his temper in the Court but he writes good judgment and order. 1990-91 (Dist. Begusarai)-Very sound knowledge of law and procedure. He is industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases. His supervision of the distribution of business among and, his control over the subordinate court good. He is an efficient Officer. He enjoys confidence of the Bar and the litigants. He is a very good Officer. 1990-91 (Dist. Begusarai)-Very sound knowledge of law and procedure. He is industrious and prompt in the disposal of cases. His supervision of the distribution of business among and, his control over the subordinate court good. He is an efficient Officer. He enjoys confidence of the Bar and the litigants. He is a very good Officer. Has grip and control over office and subordinates, Relationship with the Bar and Officers cordial." Classifications made by the Inspecting Judges of the High Court are as follows : "1984-B (average) by Hon'ble Abhiram Singh. 1987-B (Satisfactory) by Hon'ble R.C.P. Sinha. 1988-Good by Hon'ble S. Roy. 1990-B Plus by Hon'ble B.K. Roy. 1999-B Plus by Hon'ble D.P.S. Choudhary." "The observations made by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Prasad in his judgment, dated 29.11.1996 in CWJC No. 11199 of 1993." (As regards the observations made in the judicial pronouncement the petitioner has tried to give his explanation in his affidavit filed in reply to the counter affidavit filed by the High court but it is not needed here to go into that question). 34. What evaluation is to be made of the service of the petitioner on the basis of his service records as quoted above? Whether the petitioner still has potential for continued useful service and whether his continuance in service would be in public interest? Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of the extended age of retirement? I should not venture to answer these questions as it is for the Evaluation Committee of he High Court to make an assessment and evaluation of the petitioner's service on the basis of the service records as indicated above and to take its decision' on these questions. The responsibility of this court ends with the pronouncement that the earlier decisions of the Evaluation Committee, and the Full Court were unsustainable in law for the reasons indicated above and were, therefore, liable to be set aside and that the case of the petitioner requires to be re-considered in the light of this judgment and on the basis of his service records as summed up hereinabove. The decision of the Evaluation Committee, dated 11.11.1999 and of the Full Court, dated 20.11.1999 in so far as they relate to the petitioner are set aside. Also set aside is the communication issued by the Registrar General of this court under his memo no. The decision of the Evaluation Committee, dated 11.11.1999 and of the Full Court, dated 20.11.1999 in so far as they relate to the petitioner are set aside. Also set aside is the communication issued by the Registrar General of this court under his memo no. 19569/Appptt., dated 6/7 December, 1999 intimating the petitioner that he would retire from service on completing the age of 58 years. Consequently, the High court on its administrative side will now have the case of the petitioner re-examined by the Evaluation Committee and the Full Court in the light of this judgment. The Registrar General is directed to bring this matter to the notice of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice without any delay so that a meeting of the Evaluation Committee to re-consider the case of the petitioner may be convened at an early date. 35. In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs. I agree.