Per Massodi, J.;— 1. Khwaja Mohamad Qasim a member of J&K Higher Judicial Service—respondent No. 1 herein, was vide High Court Order No. 527 of 23rd October, 2002 denied benefit of extension in age of retirement up to 60 years and retired on superannuation on his attaining age of 58 years. 2. Aggrieved with the order No. 527 dated 23rd, October 2002, respondent No. I/writ petitioner, questioned it through medium of a writ petition registered as SWP No. 1315/2002. The case set up in the writ petition was that the order of retirement was not in accordance with law, in as much as it was issued by the Registrar General, and not by the Governor as required under Rules, and was also in conflict with the observations made by the Supreme Court in Registrar of High Court of Madras v. R. Rajah AIR 1988 SC 1388 . It was next contended that the appellant did not properly assess the merit of respondent No. I/writ petitioner, while according consideration to his case for extension in service up to the age of 60 years. 3. Though the respondent No. I/writ petitioner, at the time of filing the writ petition sought a writ of mandamus commanding the present appellant to allow him to continue in service up to the age of 60 years, yet the relief was later restricted to release of service benefits to the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner that he would have otherwise received had he been retained in service up to the age of 60 years. 4. The writ court on 2nd. November, 2002, framed following three questions for consideration by a larger bench of the Court:- (I) Whether the order of retirement was supposed to be passed by the Governor of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or could it be passed by the Registrar General of the High Court? (II) Whether on the basis of the comparative date as furnished in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the writ petition, the consideration of the petitioner was not in accordance with law? (Ill) Whether the decision which has been taken in accordance with law and in terms of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Registrar High Court of Madras v. R. Rajjah (supra)? 5. (Ill) Whether the decision which has been taken in accordance with law and in terms of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Registrar High Court of Madras v. R. Rajjah (supra)? 5. The Division Bench of the Court heard the matter on 23rd July, 2007, held the appellant competent to issue order No. 257 impugned in the petition. However, question whether having regard to the comparative data of respondent No. I/writ petitioner and his other colleagues as set out in paras 12 and 13 of the petition, consideration was given to the writ petitioner's case for extension in accordance with law, was left to be decided by writ court. 6. The writ court on remand after highlighting the criteria to be considered by the High Court for giving the benefit in extension of service to a judicial officer in terms of Supreme Court judgement reported as AIR 1993 SC 2493 and a Full Court resolution dated 23rd. September, 1994, embarked on an exercise to give a closer look to the data/material available to the appellant, as regards respondent No. 1 and his colleague Shri Satlal Tengloo, whose case for giving benefit of extension up to the age of 60 years was also considered by the appellant while according consideration to the case of respondent No. 1. The writ court found that the case of respondent No. 1 as also that of his colleague Shri Satlal Tengloo— also a member of Higher Judicial Service, was placed before the High Court (appellant) on 28th September, 2002. The appellant granted benefit to Shri Satlal Tengloo but denied it to the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner. On examination of record the writ court found that while the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was categorised as "Good" for the years 1995-2000 i.e. available reports/ratings for six years preceding the year of consideration, in case of his colleague Shri Satlal Tengloo such ratings were Good for 1995,1999, Average for 1996,1998 and 2000 and Fair/Good for 1997. Two other colleagues of the respondent No. I/writ petitioner namely Kuldeep Singh and B. L. Bhat though categorised as Average for four out of six years i.e. 1997-2000 and 1996,1997,1999 and 2000 were also given the benefit vide High Court Resolution dated 22nd. December, 2011 and April, 2002. Two other colleagues of the respondent No. I/writ petitioner namely Kuldeep Singh and B. L. Bhat though categorised as Average for four out of six years i.e. 1997-2000 and 1996,1997,1999 and 2000 were also given the benefit vide High Court Resolution dated 22nd. December, 2011 and April, 2002. The writ court while tracing the background in which a provision for extension in age of retirement up to 60 years in case of Judicial Officers came to be made, laid emphasis on the object sought to be achieved by the proposed extension. A reference was made to proviso added to Article 226(1) Civil Service Regulations, 1956 vide SRO 333 dated 22nd. December, 1995 to give effect to the direction given by Supreme Court in All India Judges Association case. 7. The writ court was of the opinion that after Article 226(1) of the regulations was amended, the directions given by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association case as regards constitution of Committee by the Chief Justice ceased to have effect, for the reason that the said direction and all like directions were transitory in character and were not required to be followed after rules were amended and a provision for retirement age was made part of the Civil Service Regulations. It proceeded to observe that the record of the officer(s) to whom grant of benefit of extension in age of retirement up to 60 years, was being considered was to be placed and perused by the Full Court and not a Committee constituted by the Chief Justice. The writ court, opining that in case of respondent No. 1, the record, was gone through and considered by Committee in it's meeting held on 28th September, 2002 and not by the Full Court and the appellant without going through the record contemplated by proviso to Article 226 (1) Civil Service Regulations, relied upon the Committee report, held that the case of respondent No. I/writ petitioner did not attract effective consideration by the appellant. The record also revealed that majority of the judges were not associated with full court deliberations or shown the record of the respondent No. I/writ petitioner and one of the judges declined to give his approval to the recommendations made by the Committee for the reasons that in the opinion of judge the matter required full and fair discussion and exchange of views, which was possible only in case the matter was placed in the Full Court meeting. 8. It was pointed out that whenever the High Court on appraisal of the record does not find a judicial officer fit for his retention in service beyond the age of 58 years, it has to necessarily follow the procedure prescribed for compulsory retirement and in terms of such procedure read with the guidelines laid down by it, the High Court has to go though entire service record of the officer, balance the public interest against the individual interest and on consideration frame an opinion, whether the judicial officer is in public interest to be retired and denied the benefit of extension in service up to 60 years. 9. The writ court did not come across any adverse material against the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner rated "Good" from 1995 to 2000. The Committee constituted by the Chief Justice was found not to have referred to any material as would justify its recommendation that the respondent No., 1 did not deserve the benefit provided under Article 226 (2) Civil Service Regulations. 10. Opining that the power is to be exercised in terms of Article 226 (1) proviso in a fair and proper manner, the writ court found merit in the case set up by the respondent No. I/writ petitioner and accordingly struck down the order No. 527 dated 23.10.2002 whereby the respondent No. 1 was retired on attaining the age of 58 years. The appellant and proforma respondent No. 2 were directed to treat the respondent No. 1 as in-service up to his attaining 60 years age and directed to be granted pay, allowance, and the pensionary benefits as would be available to him in wake of the writ court judgement dated 08.09.2008. 11. The appellant and proforma respondent No. 2 were directed to treat the respondent No. 1 as in-service up to his attaining 60 years age and directed to be granted pay, allowance, and the pensionary benefits as would be available to him in wake of the writ court judgement dated 08.09.2008. 11. The appellant, questions the writ court judgement in Letters Patent Appeal on hand on the grounds that the observation made by writ court, that the Full Court did not go through the relevant material and instead relied on the recommendations of the Committee and that the judges stationed at Jammu were not associated with the decision taken by the Full Court, is belied by the record. It is insisted that the decision to decline the benefit of extension in the service up to the age of 60 years to the respondent No. 1 was taken after full and frank discussion by the Full Court. It is pleaded, that the Annual Confidential Report of an officer is not sole criteria to take a decision as regards extension of aforesaid benefit to an officer; that other factors like reputation, including honesty, judicial conduct, relations with bar, administrative capacity etc, are equally important to assess suitability of an officer for according benefit of extension in age of superannuation. The writ court while rendering the impugned judgement, is said to have assumed the role of appellate forum—role not conceivable in terms of law laid down in 2003 (1) SCC 592. The writ court, according to the appellant travelled beyond the scope of the order whereby the case was remanded by Division Bench. 12. We have gone through the writ court judgement, memorandum of appeal as also the writ record. We have also heard learned Counsel for the parties. 13. The retirement age of the members of subordinate judiciary, like other Government servants, prior to Supreme Court judgement in All India Judges Association v. Union of India 1992 (1) SCC 127 (1st. All India Judge's Association case) was 58 years. We have also heard learned Counsel for the parties. 13. The retirement age of the members of subordinate judiciary, like other Government servants, prior to Supreme Court judgement in All India Judges Association v. Union of India 1992 (1) SCC 127 (1st. All India Judge's Association case) was 58 years. The Supreme Court in said case noticing distinction between the nature of work of the judicial officers and other Government servants/officers of the Executive, passed following direction:- We accordingly direct that appropriate alterations shall be made in the Rules obtaining in the States and Union Territories in respect of judicial service so as to fix the age of retirement at 60 years with effect from December, 31, 1992. We have given a long period so that appropriate amendments may be made in the meantime" (emphasis supplied). 14. The matter was revisited when Union of India and few States filed review petition, seeking review of judgement in All India Judge's Association case. In All India Judges Association v. Union of India 1993 (4) SCC 288 (IInd. All India Judge's Association case). The Supreme Court while disposing of the review petition held: "30. There is, however, one aspect we should emphasis here. To that extent the direction contained in the main judgement under review shall stand modified. The benefit of the increase of the retirement age to 60 years, shall not be available automatically to all judicial officers irrespective of their past record of service and evidence of their continued utility to the judicial system. 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 potential for continued utility shall be assessed and evaluated by appropriate Committees of Judges of the respective High Courts constituted and headed by the Chief Justices of the High Courts and the evaluation shall be made on the basis of the Judicial officer's past record of service, character rolls, quality of judgements and other relevant matters. 31. The High Court should undertake and complete the exercise in case of officers about to attain the age of 58 years well within time by following the procedure for compulsory retirement as laid down in the respective Service Rules applicable to the judicial officers. 31. The High Court should undertake and complete the exercise in case of officers about to attain the age of 58 years well within time by following the procedure for compulsory retirement as laid down in the respective Service Rules applicable to the judicial officers. Those who will not be found fit and eligible by this standard should not be given the benefit of the higher retirement age and should be compulsorily retired at the age of 58 by following the said procedure for compulsory retirement. The exercise should be undertaken before the attainment of the age of 58 years even in cases where earlier the age of superannuation was less than 58 years. It is necessary to make it clear that this assessment is for the purpose of finding out the suitability of the concerned officers for the entitlement of the benefit of the increased age of superannuation form 58 years to 60 years. It is in addition to the assessment to be undertaken for compulsory retirement and the compulsory retirement at the earlier stage/s under the respective Service Rules". 15. When judgements in 1st and IInd All India Judge's Association case are read together it emerges that while a judicial officer is to retire from service on attaining the age of 60 years, the High Court on his attaining age of 58 years is to go through his service record so as to find out whether the officer has potential for continued useful service. The object is, not to make the benefit available to "indolent officer or an officer of doubtful integrity, reputation, utility". 16. The State Government in compliance of the Apex Court judgement added proviso to Article 226 of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations. It reads:- Provided further that:- (1) Subject to provisions of Sub-Clause (2) a member of the State-Judicial Service shall retire from service in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years; (2) The High Court shall assess and evaluate the record of the Judicial Officer for his continued utility before he attains the age of 58 years by following the procedure for compulsory retirement under the service rules applicable to him and if he is not found fit and eligible he will compulsorily retire on his attaining the age of 58 years. This shall be deemed to have come into effect from 31.12.1991." 17. The proviso carved out on exception to the general rule embodied in Article 226 (1) where-under a Government servant is to retire on his attaining the age of 58 years. 18. The issue involved in the present case—that arises in all such matters that surface befr-e Courts day in and day out, relates to the nature and scope, of "assessment and evaluation of record of the judicial officer" High Court is required to make, to decide whether the benefit of extension in service up to 60 years may be given to the officer?. Has the High Court absolute and unbridled powers to decide whether the benefit is to be given to a judicial officer? Is such decision to be taken on objective and dispassionate appraisal of the service record of the officer or without reference to the record on the whim and caprice—say by flip of a coin? Whether the decision taken by the High Court is subject to judicial review and what is the scope of such review? These and like questions assume importance, when we are called upon to deal with the primary question as regards scope of "assessment and evaluation " to be made in terms of sub clause (2) to fourth proviso to Article 226, Civil Service Regulations. 19. A closer look on the judgment in 1st All India Judges Association case would reveal that justification for extended age of superannuation in case of Judicial Officers as against other Government servants are the nature of work, the Judicial Officers are to perform. The extension in the age of retirement is not linked with outstanding performance or excellent service record. It would be however, anomalous to allow the benefit of extension in the age of retirement to an indolent officer or an officer of doubtful integrity because, it would negate the very purpose of the benefit and also run counter to the policy where-under the High Court subjects work and conduct of the Judicial officers to scrutiny at different stages in their service carrier i.e. on attaining of age of 50 years, 55 years, so as to get rid of the dead wood and promote efficiency in justice delivery system. In the said background the service record of a j judicial officer on his attaining age of 58 years is to be gone through to assess his utility for continued of service. 20. The basic-line is that a Judicial Officer has to continue in service till he attains age of 60 years. However, on his attaining age of 58 years his service record is to be scrutinized to find out whether because of his indolence dishonesty or misconduct, no purpose would be served by allowing him to continue in service. The scrutiny of service record is of the nature, the High Court has to make, at different stages in the service carrier of judicial officer before he attains the age of 58 years. The exercise is not to see whether performance of the Judicial Officer is outstanding and the officer outshines his colleagues but to find out whether the service record points to indolence, inefficiency or in propriety or any kind of misconduct on part of the Judicial Officer in public or private life. The basic principle finds expression in IVth proviso Sub Clause (1) to Article 226 of the Jammu and Kashmir Service Regulations. It lays down that a member of the State- Judicial service shall retire from service in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years. This however, is made subject to Sub Clause (2) to the Proviso whereunder the service record of the officer is to be assessed and evaluated for his continued utility and extension of benefit under Sub Clause (1). 21. The High Court against the said backdrop, is required to go through the performance of service record of an officer in a dispassionate and objective manner. The material that would attract attention of the High Court in the first place would be the Annual Confidential Reports of the Judicial Officer. The Annual Confidential Report prescribed under rules does not only give general idea about work and conduct of the Judicial Officer, but comprises of as many as 22 columns that reflecte, as many aspects of the personality and the performance of the Judicial Officer. The Annual Confidential Report prescribed under rules does not only give general idea about work and conduct of the Judicial Officer, but comprises of as many as 22 columns that reflecte, as many aspects of the personality and the performance of the Judicial Officer. The aspects on which performance of a Judicial officer is assessed by his Administrative Judge and thereafter by the Full Court while, recording his Annual Confidential Report range from his conduct as Judicial Officer, his relations with the members of the Bar and litigant public, quality of his judgments, his understanding of law disposal rate so on and so forth. 22. It is only after the Judicial Officer is graded on each of the subjects that his overall rating is recorded by the High Court. The Annual Confidential Report of a Judicial Officer is, therefore, the fundamental document to attract attention of the High Court while evaluating and assessing continued utility in service. This is the reason that the High Court in the Resolution dated 23rd September, 1994 whereby criteria/norms for grant of benefit of extended age of superannuation have been laid down, has placed extra focus on the Annual Confidential Reports and sub titled it as "Special Considerations". In terms of prescribed criteria, Annual Confidential Report is to be given due weightage along with other factors like overall reputation, honesty, Judicial conduct, relations with bar, administrative capacity etc., that again one way or other find expression in Annual Confidential Report. In any case the High Court has not to act in arbitrary, whimsical or capricious manner, while assessing and evaluating the service record of Judicial Officer. It is to be realized that by declaring a Judicial Officer not to have continued utility, he is deprived of right to continue in service till the age of 60 years in terms of Sub Clause (1) IVth Proviso to Article 226 service regulations. The exercise is, therefore, to be undertaken in a fair, transparent and objective manner. The decision taken must find support from the service record of the Judicial Officer. The decision taken by the High Court therefore, would be subject to judicial review and the High Court would be within its power under Article 226 Constitution of India read with Section 103 Constitution of J&K to examine the decision taken, to find out whether it suffers from any arbitrariness or perversity. 23. The decision taken by the High Court therefore, would be subject to judicial review and the High Court would be within its power under Article 226 Constitution of India read with Section 103 Constitution of J&K to examine the decision taken, to find out whether it suffers from any arbitrariness or perversity. 23. In the present case, the writ Court on perusal of the record found the respondent No. 1 to have been graded "Good" in Annual Confidential Reports of five years preceding the date of his consideration for extension of the benefit under Article 226, IVth Proviso Sub Clause (1). In terms of Criteria laid down in Resolution dated 23rd September, 1994 an officer in order to be eligible for the benefit of extended age of superannuation is to have at least 75% gradings categorized as "Good" and not to have earned an adverse or average entry in his Annual Confidential Reports after his last promotion. The respondent No. 1 satisfied, both the condition laid down in the criteria dated 23rd September, 1994. The writ Court on going through the service record of the respondent No. 1 did not come across any adverse rating or any adverse report as regards his integrity, Judicial conduct, relations with bar or his administrative capacity. The respondent No. 1, therefore, was eligible for the benefit of extended age of superannuation at the touch stone of Article 226 IVth Proviso Sub Clause (2) as also the criteria laid down in resolution dated 23rd September, 1994. 24. The writ Court cannot be said to have assumed the role of an appellate forum over the decision taken by the High Court if it finds that the decision taken by the High Court is not sustainable even at the anvil of the criteria adopted by the High Court. The appellant could very well be heard saying that the writ Court sat in appeal over the decision, had the writ Court recorded disagreement with the "grading" given to the respondent No. 1 by the High Court and held the respondent No. 1 to have been entitled to grading different from one given. But in the present case the writ Court has not disputed the grading given by the High Court to the respondent No. 1 as reflected in his Annual Confidential Report. But in the present case the writ Court has not disputed the grading given by the High Court to the respondent No. 1 as reflected in his Annual Confidential Report. It on the other hand has found the decision taken and the order impugned not sustainable on touchstone record. 25. The arbitrariness exhibited while taking decision as regards continued utility of the respondent No. 1 in becomes more prominent when the appellant while declining the benefit to the respondent No. 1 granted same benefit to his colleague Shri Satlal Tengloo, whose gradings as recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports were lower than that of the respondent No. 1. The appellant gave the benefit of extended age of superannuation to two other senior colleagues of the appellant with low "gradings" as compared to respondent No. 1, whose cases were accorded consideration some time before the case of respondent 1 No. 1 was considered. The writ Court was, therefore, right in allowing challenge to the order dated 23rd October, 2002, whereby the respondent No. 1 was retired on his attaining age of 58 years and quashing the order. 26. There is also no scope for disagreement with the writ Court that once Article 226 Civil Service Regulations amended and 4th Proviso added in compliance of the Apex Court Judgment in 1st All India Judges Association case, the directions given in IInd All India Judges Association case ceased to have force in as much as the directions were tentative and transitory in nature. The directions in IInd All India Judges Association case, whereby High Court was required to constitute a Committee, to evaluate potential of continued useful service were given to address the concern shown by Union of India and some States that in absence of guidelines even indolent and inefficient officers and officers of doubtful integrity may be in a position to reap the benefit that was not expected to have been intended for them. Once the competent authority in compliance of direction in 1st. All India Judges Association case came up with the regulations that made room for evaluation and assessment of service record of Judicial Officer on his attaining age of 58 years, the directions given in Ilnd All India Judges Association case lost force. Once the competent authority in compliance of direction in 1st. All India Judges Association case came up with the regulations that made room for evaluation and assessment of service record of Judicial Officer on his attaining age of 58 years, the directions given in Ilnd All India Judges Association case lost force. It was, therefore, no more open to the High Court to entrust the evaluation and assessment to a Committee of Judges and take a decision exclusively on the report of such Committee without itself making an appraisal of service record of the officer to opine whether the officer had continued utility for the service. The High Court in the instant case unmindful of the mandate of Article 226IVth Proviso Sub Clause 1 and 2 made a complete surrender and jurisdiction of its powers in favour of the Committee and once the report of the Committee was available it did not peruse the report with the service record of the officer and take a decision only after frank, full and fair discussion on the matter. Not only was the report of the Committee withheld from the Judges but also not placed before the Full Court. One of the Judges insisted on discussion on the matter in the Full Court that was never convened while four other Judges headquartered at Jammu were not available for the discussion on the matter in the light of Committee report and service record. The decision essentially was a minority decision and that also based on report of the Committee, not subjected to discussion against the backdrop the service record of respondent No. 1. It needs no emphasis that the circulation of the proposal cannot be substitute for discussion and deliberations made in Full Court meeting. Circulation is a one way process where all those expected to be party to a decision have no opportunity to respond to the views and counter views on the subject and therefore, the decision is not an informed decision and outcome of frank, full and fair discussion a hallmark of the Full Court deliberations. 27. For the reasons discussed, we do not find a case made out for interference with the writ court judgement. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.