ORDER : Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J. 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. 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 the respective Districts was held on 27.06.2012 wherein it was resolved as follows: “That in the year 1987, the High Court while reviewing the work of the Officer has recorded his out turn of work during the III period as ‘inadequate’.” 8. It is stated that appointment of Selection Grade post from District and Sessions Judge including the name of the petitioner for appointment as Selection Grade post from District and Sessions Judge was placed before the Administrative Committee Meeting of Hon’ble Judges, which was held on 31.03.2011 and in the said meeting the appointment of petitioner along with five others to the post of Selection Grade District and Sessions Judges was ignored. 9. It is stated that pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 27.10.2011 requesting to expunge the adverse remarks noted against him in his Annual Confidential Reports and to appoint him as Selection Grade District and Sessions Judge. The said representation was considered and rejected by the Administrative Committee Meeting held on 05.07.2012 and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide proceedings order ROC No.1769/2012-B.Spl., dated 24.08.2012. 10. It is stated that the Hon’ble High Court having carefully considered the entire ACRs, Work Review Remarks and Vigilance Profile of the petitioner in the right perspective decided that the petitioner was to be compulsorily retired at the age of 58 years and there is nothing wrong in the decision of the High Court for not appointing him to the Selection Grade post of District and Sessions Judge. Respondent No.2 also relied on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts. 11. In the case of Ashok Pissay v. The High Court of A.P. rep.by Registrar (Vigilance) and Anr., [W.P.No.23604/2010] , this Court, after relying on several decisions rendered on the point held that “there is a gradual and perceptible shift of law whereby un-communicated adverse remarks may be taken into consideration for assessment of compulsory retirement and that the entire service record of the Judicial Officer must be taken into consideration at the time of reaching the impugned decision.” 12. It is further stated that the Hon’ble Administrative Committee having considered the ACRs, Work Review Remarks, Vigilance Profile, the adverse entries as regards integrity, quantitative and qualitative performance made during the period anterior to three years can also be considered. The contention of the petitioner is that the adverse remarks were not communicated to him and if the same were communicated, the same would have been taken into consideration for evaluation. The contention of the petitioner is that the adverse remarks were not communicated to him and if the same were communicated, the same would have been taken into consideration for evaluation. It is further stated that the High Court’s decision to compulsory retire the petitioner on completion of age of 58 years is valid and does not suffer from any infirmity warranting judicial review and, therefore, it prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 13. Heard Mr G. Sai Prasen, learned counsel representing Ms. K. Udaya Sree, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Sri Ram, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 14. After hearing learned counsel appearing on either side, the point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is “whether G.O.Ms.No.105 Law (LA&SC F), dated 25.09.2012, issued by Government and consequential proceedings issued by this Court in Order ROC No.5032/2012-B.Spl, dated 26.09.2012, are in accordance with law or not?” 15. POINT : It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Civil Judge on 07.10.1985 and was promoted to the post of Senior Civil Judge from 16.10.1995 and further promoted to the post of District and Sessions Judge with effect from 01.07.2002 and he has been working as I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. During his entire service of past 27 years he has not been served with any communication indicating deficiency in his service. However, respondent No.2 issued communication on 19.08.2011 through proceedings dated 08.08.2011 alleging that there was adverse entry in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 2009 and the petitioner was not promoted to the post of District and Sessions Judge to the Selection Grade and he was also not given the said benefit. It is also brought to the notice that the 2 nd respondent communicated orders of this Court vide ROC No.1769/2012- B.Spl., dated 24.08.2012, informing the petitioner that his request to appoint him as selection Grade District and Sessions Judge has been rejected. Further, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.105 notifying compulsory retirement of the petitioner on the A.N. of 30.09.2012. 16. It is also brought to the notice that the 2 nd respondent communicated orders of this Court vide ROC No.1769/2012- B.Spl., dated 24.08.2012, informing the petitioner that his request to appoint him as selection Grade District and Sessions Judge has been rejected. Further, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.105 notifying compulsory retirement of the petitioner on the A.N. of 30.09.2012. 16. When the petitioner was given promotion to the post of Senior Civil Judge at Anantapur and transferred to Huzurnagar, Karimangar District where he worked from July 1996 to January 1998, the Principal District Judge, noted his integrity as ‘doubtful’ in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1996 and also one of the Committee Judges of this Court. However, nothing has been done to follow up on said issue. It is further case of the petitioner that in the year 1992 and 1993, his integrity was noted as ‘satisfactory and good.’ When the petitioner worked as Junior Civil Judge at Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District, from May 1991 to May 1994, in the Annual confidential Reports of 1991, 1992, and 1993, out of three, two of the then Principal District and Session Judges noted ‘Satisfactory and Good’ regarding his performance. However, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge noted his integrity as ‘Doubtful’. 17. The contention of the petitioner is that he submitted a representation, dated 27.10.2011, requesting for expunging of adverse remarks noted in his Annual Confidential Reports and to appoint him as Selection Grade District and Sessions Judge. But the same was not considered. 18. Before going into the facts of the case, it is pertinent to extract the remarks noted against the petitioner by the Portfolio Judge of High Court and learned Principal District Judge, which reads thus: Year Reputation Remarks of Principal District Judge concerned Remarks of High Court portfolio judge 1986 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity/honest b) Impartiality c) Character. Satisfactory Satisfactory 1987 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity/honest b) Impartiality c) Character Satisfactory Satisfactory 1988 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity/honest b) Impartiality c) Character Not Satisfactory Poor 1989 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity/honest b) Impartiality c) Character Poor Poor 1990 Reputation of the officer. d) Integrity/honest e) Impartiality f) Character Poor Poor 1991 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity/honest b) Impartiality c) Character Adequate Adequate 1992 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity/honest b) Impartiality c) Character Good Satisfactory 1993 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity/honest b) Impartiality c) Character Poor Poor 1990 Reputation of the officer. d) Integrity/honest e) Impartiality f) Character Poor Poor 1991 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity/honest b) Impartiality c) Character Adequate Adequate 1992 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity/honest b) Impartiality c) Character Good Satisfactory 1993 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity/honest b) Impartiality c) Character() Satisfactory Average 1994 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity/Doubtful b) Impartiality c) Character Not Satisfactory Average 1995 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity/honest b) Impartiality c) Character Satisfactory Good 1996 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity/honest b) Impartiality c) Character Satisfactory Satisfactory 1997 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity- Doubtful b) Impartiality c) Character Average Average 1998 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity – Doubtful b) Impartiality c) Character Average Average 1999 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity – Honest b) Impartiality c) Character Average Poor 2000 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity – Doubtful b) Impartiality c) Character Average Average 2001 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity – b) Impartiality c) Character Satisfactory - 2002 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity – b) Impartiality c) Character - Good 2003 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity b) Impartiality c) Character - Satisfactory 2004 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity b) Impartiality c) Character - Satisfactory 2005 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity b) Impartiality c) Character - Satisfactory 2006 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity b) Impartiality c) Character - Satisfactory 2007 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity b) Impartiality c) Character - Satisfactory 2008 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity b) Impartiality c) Character - Satisfactory 2009 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity b) Impartiality c) Character - Satisfactory 2010 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity b) Impartiality c) Character - Good 2011 Reputation of the officer. a) Integrity b) Impartiality c) Character - Good 19. According to the respondents, the representation filed by the petitioner was placed before the Administrative Committee Meeting held on 05.07.2012. The representation was considered and rejected by the respondents and the same was communicated by the High Court vide proceedings Order ROC No.1769/2012-B.Spl., dated 24.08.2012. Further, vide proceedings dated 07.06.2012, the Registrar (Vigilance) communicated the entire adverse remarks for the years 1990, 1994, 1996, 1997 and 1998 as sought for by the petitioner. 20. The representation was considered and rejected by the respondents and the same was communicated by the High Court vide proceedings Order ROC No.1769/2012-B.Spl., dated 24.08.2012. Further, vide proceedings dated 07.06.2012, the Registrar (Vigilance) communicated the entire adverse remarks for the years 1990, 1994, 1996, 1997 and 1998 as sought for by the petitioner. 20. According to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled for communication of adverse remarks as a matter of right as the communication of the remarks pertaining to those years is subject to satisfaction of the High Court. In view of amendment to Rule 6 of the Confidentiality Rules and the case laws, the High Court has opined not to communicate the adverse remarks to the petitioner and such un-communicated adverse remarks can be taken into consideration for the purpose of taking the impugned decision. However, communication of adverse remarks was done at the stage of the petitioner’s explanation. There can be no allegation of any lapse in communication of the remarks, and such remarks can be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the petitioner’s continued utility in service and consequent action to compulsory retire such officer. 21. During the course of hearing, this Bench has called for vigilance record of the petitioner. On perusal of the same, the Administrative Committee conducted its Minutes of Meeting on 27.06.2012. The same is extracted below: “MINUTES OF THEMEETING OF THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE HELD ON 27.06.2012 AT 4:15 P.M., IN THE CHAMBERS OF THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE. SUBJECT NO.1 REVIEW OF CASES – Review of cases of Judicial Officers who are going to complete 58 years of age in the Months from July, 2012 to December, 2012 for assessing their continued utility in service beyond 58 years of age as per the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 as amended by Act No.42 of 2006 – Regarding. RESOLUTION: (A) Considered the service profiles of the following officers, rate of disposals, quality of their judgments, integrity, complaints received from time to time and action taken thereon and resolved that they are fit to be continued in service upto the age of 60 years. 1. Sri M.Srinivasulu Reddy 2. Sri Ch.Venkateswara Rao 3. Sri T.Gangi Reddy 4. Smt. Y Vijaya Lakshmi 5. Sri N Basavaiah 6. Sri G Dasappa 7. Sri M.R.Satyanarayana 8. Sri B.Girija Manohar 9. 1. Sri M.Srinivasulu Reddy 2. Sri Ch.Venkateswara Rao 3. Sri T.Gangi Reddy 4. Smt. Y Vijaya Lakshmi 5. Sri N Basavaiah 6. Sri G Dasappa 7. Sri M.R.Satyanarayana 8. Sri B.Girija Manohar 9. Sri P.Mutyala Naidu 10. Sri S.Ravi Kumar 11. Sri K Krishna Rao 12. Sri B Rama Rao 13. Sri T Eswara Rao 14. Sri S Victor Nelson Raju (B) Considered the service profiles, including the rate of disposals, quality of their judgments, the record pertaining to noting on integrity, complaints received from time to time and action taken thereon of Sri.A.Radha Krishna, smt.M.SeethaRajya Lakshmi, District and Sessions Judges and Sri D.Rama Krishna and Sri M. Rama Seshagiri Rao, Senior Civil Judges and resolved to defer the matter and further resolved to communicate the adverse remarks noted in their annual confidential reports to the Officers and call for their remarks. (C) Considered and resolved to defer the name of Sri. K.Ashok Babu till receipt of the enquiry report. (D) Considered the service profiles, including the rate of disposal, quality of their judgments, the record pertaining to noting an integrity, complaints received from time to time and action taken thereon of Sri M.A.Shareef and Sri K. Chandra Mohanthy District and Sessions Judges. The evaluation of the committee in respect of Sri M.A.Shareef is – That in the year 1987, the District Judge, Mahabubnagar, in his confidential report recorded the out turn of work of the Officer quantitatively as ‘not satisfactory’ and qualitatively as ‘average’. The High Court while reviewing the work of the Officer has recorded his out turn of work during the III period as ‘inadequate’. In the year 1988, the District Judge, Mahabubnagar in his confidential report has recorded the out turn of work of the Officer quantitatively as ‘not satisfactory and qualitatively as ‘average’. Another District Judge for the same year has recorded the out turn of work of the Officer quantitatively as ‘poor’ and qualitatively as an average officer and recorded that a complaint was received that he has shown favour to some Advocates. For the same year another District Judge recorded the out turn of work of the officer as ‘poor’. The High Court while reviewing his work for the Periods I and III recorded his out turn of work as ‘poor’ and for the II period as ‘inadequate’. All the Hon’ble Judges of the Committee recorded that his over all disposals were ‘poor’. The High Court while reviewing his work for the Periods I and III recorded his out turn of work as ‘poor’ and for the II period as ‘inadequate’. All the Hon’ble Judges of the Committee recorded that his over all disposals were ‘poor’. In the year 1989, the District Judge, Adilabad, in his confidential report recorded his out turn of work quantitatively as ‘poor’. In the year 1990, the District Judge, Adilabad in his confidential report has recorded the work of the officer quantitatively as well as qualitatively as is ‘poor’ and as regards integrity, he has recorded that the Officer ‘has to be watched’. In the General Remarks, it was recorded that the Officer is not working properly and leaves headquarters without permission. Another District Judge recorded the out turn of work of the officer quantitatively as ‘poor’ and qualitatively as ‘average’. For the same year, the High Court, while reviewing his work for the periods I, II and II, recorded his out turn of work as ‘poor’. One of the Hon’ble Judges of the Committee noted that the out turn of work of the officer as ‘poor’. Another Hon’ble Judge of the Committee recorded his out turn of work as ‘poor’ and noted that the District Judge may be directed ‘to watch his performance’. Another Hon’ble Judge of the Committee recorded his out turn of work as ‘poor’ and further recorded that the District Judge may be directed ‘to keep a watch over him’. In the year 1991, the High Court while reviewing the work of the officer has recorded the out turn of work of the officer during the I period as ‘poor’. In the year 1992, the High Court, while reviewing the work of the Officer, has recorded that the qualitatively the work of the Officer is ‘average’. In the year 1993, the High Court, while reviewing the work of the Officer, recorded quantitatively the work of the Officer for the periods I and II as ‘not satisfactory’ and qualitatively as ‘average’. In the year 1994, the District Judge, Nalgonda in his confidential report has recorded that the Officer has “doubtful integrity, as he is freely spoken to the advocates’ and in the General remarks, the District Judge has recorded that the Officer is ‘required to be watched with greater attention’. In the year 1994, the District Judge, Nalgonda in his confidential report has recorded that the Officer has “doubtful integrity, as he is freely spoken to the advocates’ and in the General remarks, the District Judge has recorded that the Officer is ‘required to be watched with greater attention’. For the same year, as regards his conduct, one of the Hon’ble Judges of the Committee, noted ‘he must be kept under watch’ and another Hon’ble Judge of the Committee has recorded that the out turn of work of the Officer is ‘not satisfactory’ and as regards his conduct recorded as ‘doubtful’ and in the general remarks recorded ‘to be watched carefully’. Another Hon’ble Judge of the Committee recorded his out turn of work as ‘average’. In the year 1995, the High Court while reviewing the work of the Officer for the periods II and III has recorded the out turn of work of the officer during the said periods quantitatively as ‘not satisfactory’ and qualitatively as ‘below average’ and ‘average’ respectively. Three Hon’ble Judges of the Committee recorded the work of the officer as ‘average’. In the year 1996, in his confidential report the District Judge, Karimnagar has recorded the out turn of work of the Officer quantitatively and qualitatively as ‘below average’ and as regards the integrity the District Judge has recorded as ‘doubtful’ and in the general remarks, the District Judge reported that ‘he leaves the headquarters by Friday afternoon and returns in the afternoon of Monday’. For the same year, while assessing the work and conduct of the Officer, one of the Hon’ble Judges of the Committee recorded that the work of the Officer is ‘not satisfactory’, as regards conduct recorded ‘to be kept under watch’ and as against ‘other remarks’ recorded as “appears to be doubtful’. Another Hon’ble Judge of the Committee has noted that quantitatively the work of the Officer is ‘below average’. Another Hon’ble Judge of the Committee has recorded the out turn of work of the officer as ‘below average’ and in the general remarks recorded that “The District says that further enquiries are to be made as regards his integrity. Let await the decision of the Administrative Committee’. Another Hon’ble Judge of the Committee has recorded the out turn of work of the officer as ‘below average’ and in the general remarks recorded that “The District says that further enquiries are to be made as regards his integrity. Let await the decision of the Administrative Committee’. In the year 1997, in his confidential report, the District Judge, Karimnagar as regards the character of the Officer recorded as ‘bad reputation’ and as regards integrity recorded as ‘doubtful’; under the caption “Punishments, Censures or Special commendations” recorded that ‘He is intelligent corrupt officer. … Takes bribe only in criminal cases and land acquisition cases wherein Government is opposite party”. The High Court, while reviewing the work of the Officer, has recorded qualitatively during the I period as ‘average’ and for the II period as ‘just average’. One of the Hon’ble Judges of the Committee in the general remarks noted as ‘Officer of doubtful integrity’. Another Hon’ble Judge of the Committee has recorded the work of the officer as ‘just average’ and his conduct was recorded as ‘doubtful integrity’. Two Hon’ble Judges of the Committee recorded the work of the officer as ‘average’ and one Hon’ble Judge recorded ‘He should be watched carefully’. In the year 1998, the District Judge, Karimnagar in his confidential report reported the quality of work of the Officer as ‘average’ and noted his character as ‘bad reputation’ and integrity as ‘doubtful’; under the caption ‘Punishments, Censures or Special Commendations as ‘He is intelligent corrupt Officer’. Another District Judge in his confidential report recorded that quantitatively the work of the officer is ‘not satisfactory’. The High Court, while reviewing his work, has recorded that the out turn of work of the officer for the II period as ‘average’ and qualitatively for the periods I and II as ‘average’. Three Hon’ble Judges of the Committee assessed the work of the officer as ‘average’. One of the Hon’ble Judges of the Committee recorded his conduct as ‘Integrity is doubtful’. Another Hon’ble Judge recorded about his conduct as ‘not satisfactory’ and in the general remarks recorded as ‘The Officer’s performance has to be constantly watched’. Another Hon’ble Judge under the caption ‘other remarks’ recorded that the Officer is of questionable integrity. In the year 1999, the District Judge, in his confidential report recorded the quantity of work of the officer as ‘not satisfactory’ and qualitatively as ‘average’. Another Hon’ble Judge under the caption ‘other remarks’ recorded that the Officer is of questionable integrity. In the year 1999, the District Judge, in his confidential report recorded the quantity of work of the officer as ‘not satisfactory’ and qualitatively as ‘average’. The High Court, while reviewing the work of the Officer, recorded that during the Periods I and II quantitatively the work of the Officer was ‘Totally unsatisfactory’ and ‘poor’ respectively and for the same periods qualitatively recorded as ‘poor’ and ‘average’ respectively. In the year 2000, in it’s work review, the High Court assessed the work of the Officer quantitatively for the I period as ‘Totally unsatisfactory’ and qualitatively as ‘poor’ and for the II period qualitatively recorded as ‘average’. Two Hon’ble Judges of the Committee recorded his work and conduct as ‘average’ and another Hon’ble Judge of the Committee recorded his work as ‘average’. In the year 2001, the District Judge, Kurnool in his confidential report has recorded the work of the Officer as ‘average’ and in the special confidential report qualitatively his work was recorded as ‘average’. In the year 2002, the High Court in it’s work review, assessed the work of the Officer quantitatively as well as qualitatively for the I period as ‘average’. Two Hon’ble Judges of the Committee recorded the work of the Officer as ‘average’. In the years 2005 and 2007, one of the Hon’ble Judges of the Committee recorded the work of the officer as ‘average’. In the year 2009, as regards the conduct of the Officer, one of the Hon’ble Judges of the Committee has recorded ‘Do not command good reputation’. By taking overall view of the matter, the Committee resolved that the Officers Sri M.A. Shareef and Sri K. Chandra Mohanty are not fit to be continued in service beyond the age of 58 years and up to the age of 60 years. It is further resolved that in public interest they be compulsorily retired from service on completion of their respective age of 58years on the respective dates they complete 58years, in terms of first proviso to section 3(1A) of the Andhra Pradesh Public employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 and that they be paid three months pay in lieu of notice.” 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued and contended that the petitioner was not provided with the adverse remarks in the confidential reports relating to his cadre, integrity etc., in the year 1997-98 which is not inconsonance with the Rules. It is further stated that the petitioner was discharging his duties to the satisfaction of the litigant public, Advocates and his superiors and there were no complaints whatsoever from any corner for the past 27 years. He further contended that initially though the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.48 but subsequently his name was shown at Sl.No.52, which was published on 01.01.2012. The said revision was without any basis and in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner also not given Selection Grade District Judge and also not provided with the confidential reports, which he obtained under Right to Information Act, the petitioner has submitted representation. According to the petitioner, he further contended that on 07.06.2012 adverse remarks noted in the Annual Confidential Reports submitted and thereafter within one month further action was taken in the matter. 23. He further submitted that the petitioner made representations to expunge adverse remarks noted against him, which in fact was admitted by High Court in its proceedings in order ROC No.769/2012—SPL dated 24.08.2012. But, the Committee Judges meeting held on 27.06.2012 did not mention anything about the said representations. According to the petitioner, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pyare Mohan Lal vs. State of Jharkhand it was held that the adverse remarks can be expunged on valid grounds by the Committee Judges and also by the High Court. 24. He also further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of Punjab , (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 188 , wherein at paragraph Nos.10 and 11 it was held as under: “ 10. After the aforesaid observation this Court directed the State Government to consider and dispose of the representation made by the appellant and thereafter the Selection Committee was directed to consider his case afresh. After the aforesaid observation this Court directed the State Government to consider and dispose of the representation made by the appellant and thereafter the Selection Committee was directed to consider his case afresh. In Amar Kant Choudhary v. State of Bihar3 the court again emphasized that adverse report in a confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Unless the representation against the adverse entry is considered and disposed of it is not just and fair to act upon those adverse entries. These decisions lay down the principle that unless an adverse report is communicated and representation, if any, made by the employee is considered, it cannot be acted upon to deny promotion. We are of the opinion that the same consideration must apply to a case where the adverse entries are taken into account in retiring an employee prematurely from service. It would be unjust and unfair and contrary to principles of natural justice to retire prematurely a government employee on the basis of adverse entries which are either not communicated to him or if communicated representations made against those entries are not considered and disposed of. The appellant had submitted his representations against adverse entries for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73 and admittedly those representations were not considered and disposed of and yet the appropriate authority considered those entries in forming opinion that the appellant's premature retirement was in the public interest. We are, therefore, of the opinion that for this reason the order of the State Government is not sustainable in law. 11. Though the entire service record of an employee may be considered while considering the question of his premature retirement, but if the service record of the last 10 years of his service do not indicate any deficiency in his work and conduct it would be unjust and unreasonable to retire him prematurely on the basis of entries which may have been awarded to him prior to that period. In Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India [ (1980) 4 SCC 321 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1981) 1 SCR 430 : (1980) 2 LLJ 459 ] this Court held that if an officer had earned no adverse entries at least for five years immediately before the compulsory retirement, he cannot be cashiered on the score that long years ago his performance had been poor. It appears that the State of Punjab realised that premature retirement of an employee on the basis of entire service record which may include stale entry, would be unreasonable and it therefore issued government order on 22-6-1981 directing that under the Punjab Civil Seivices (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 it would not be desirable to scrutinize the entire service record of an employee and premature retirement should not be ordered if during the last 5 years the work and conduct of the employee have been good. This direction was no doubt issued after the appellant was prematurely retired in March 1980 but nonetheless it is apparent that the Government had changed its policy in accordance with the decisions of this Court and it had taken a decision not to retire a government servant if his service record for the last five years did not contain any adverse remarks. The appellant had not earned any adverse remarks during the last five years of service, on the other hand he had earned “good” and “very good” entries during those years. In this view the government's decision to retire the appellant prematurely in exercise of the power under Rule 3 is not sustainable in law.” 25. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.T. Ramesh vs. State of Karnataka , [ AIR 2007 SC 1262 ] and contended that adverse remarks if at all communicated at appropriate time after decades when denial of Selection Grade Post to the petitioner besides reducing his rank in the seniority list and also rejected his application dated 24.08.2012 besides denying promotion to the post of District and Sessions Judge. The explanation was called for on 07.06.2012 and the same was rejected on 24.08.2012 while addressing the Government to retire him on 30.09.2012 with a consequential order of High Court dated 26.09.2012 which would clearly show that the said proceedings are biased and not based on realities. 26. The explanation was called for on 07.06.2012 and the same was rejected on 24.08.2012 while addressing the Government to retire him on 30.09.2012 with a consequential order of High Court dated 26.09.2012 which would clearly show that the said proceedings are biased and not based on realities. 26. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for respondent No.2 filed counter-affidavit supporting that the Hon’ble High Court having carefully considered the entire ACRs and vigilance report of the petitioner was right in deciding the petitioner to be compulsorily retired from service at the age of 58 years and that there is nothing wrong in the decision of the High Court for not appointing the petitioner for Selection Grade Post of District and Sessions Judge. It is also stated that as per judgment of the High Court in the case of Ashok Pissay vs. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Registrar (Vigilance) and another (W.P.No.23604 of 2010) wherein it was held that the gradual and perceptible shift of the law whereby un-communicated adverse remarks may be taken into consideration for assessment of compulsory retirement and that the entire service record of the Judicial Officer must be taken into consideration at the time of reaching to the impugned decision. He also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das vs. Chief Dist. Medical Officer , [ (1992) 2 SCC 299 ] . Regarding adverse remarks, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurdas Singh , [ (1998) 4 SCC 92 ] , wherein it was held that before the decision is taken to retire a Government servant prematurely, the authorities concerned are required to consider the whole service record and any adverse entry prior to earning of promotion or crossing of efficiency bar or picking up higher rank is not wiped out and can be taken into consideration while considering the overall performance of the employee during whole of his service tenure whether it is in the public interest to retain him in service. The whole service record of the employee will include any un-communicated adverse entries as well. (i) It is further contended that in the recent case of Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) Through L.R. vs. Lt. The whole service record of the employee will include any un-communicated adverse entries as well. (i) It is further contended that in the recent case of Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) Through L.R. vs. Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi and Anr , [ (2011) 10 SCALE 315 ] , it was held thus: “Judicial service is not a service in the sense of an employment as is commonly understood. Judges are discharging their functions while exercising the sovereign judicial power of the State. Their honesty and integrity is expected to be beyond doubt. It should be reflected in their overall reputation. There is no manner of doubt that the nature of judicial service is such that it cannot afford to suffer continuance in service of persons of doubtful integrity or who have lost their utility.” The Committee came to the right perspective that petitioner has to be compulsorily retired at the stage of 58/59 years and there is nothing wrong in the decision of the High Court for not appointing the petitioner for Selection Grade post of District and Sessions Judge. 27. Further, in the backdrop of the facts stated above, this Bench feels it necessary to discuss about the settled law in respect of the compulsory retirement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Bindra v. Union of India & Ors., 1998(7) SCC 310 and also in case of Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors , 2001(2) SCC 305 while dealing on the issue of compulsory retirement, at paragraph No. 2 held as under: “12.Compulsory retirement in service jurisprudence has two meanings. Under the various disciplinary rules, compulsory retirement is one of the penalties inflicted on a delinquent government servant consequent upon a finding of guilt being recorded in disciplinary proceedings. Such penalty involves stigma and cannot be inflicted except by following procedure prescribed by the relevant rules or consistently with the principles of natural justice if the field for inflicting such penalty be not occupied by any rules. Such compulsory retirement in the case of a government servant must also withstand the scrutiny of Article 311 of the Constitution. Such penalty involves stigma and cannot be inflicted except by following procedure prescribed by the relevant rules or consistently with the principles of natural justice if the field for inflicting such penalty be not occupied by any rules. Such compulsory retirement in the case of a government servant must also withstand the scrutiny of Article 311 of the Constitution. Then there are service rules, such as Rule 56(j) of Fundamental Rules, which confer on the Government or the appropriate authority, an absolute (but not arbitrary) right to retire a government servant on his attaining a particular age or on his having completed a certain number of years of service on formation of an opinion that in public interest it is necessary to compulsorily retire a government servant. So long as the opinion forming basis of the order for compulsory retirement in public interest is formed bonafide, the opinion cannot be ordinarily interfered with by a judicial forum. Such an order may be subjected to judicial review on very limited grounds such as the order being malafide, based on no material or on collateral grounds or having been passed by an authority not competent to do so.” 28. Recently again in case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. vs. Babu Lal Jangir , , [82013 (10) SCC 551] the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.24 held as under: “24. Having taken note of the correct principles which need to be applied, we can safely conclude that the order of the High Court based solely on the judgment in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Chopra was not correct. The High Court could not have set aside the order merely on the ground that service record pertaining to the period 1978-90 being old and stale could not be taken into consideration at all. As per the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that entire service record is relevant for deciding as to whether the government servant needs to be eased out prematurely. Of course, at the same time, subsequent record is also relevant, and immediate past record, preceding the date on which decision is to be taken would be of more value, qualitatively. Of course, at the same time, subsequent record is also relevant, and immediate past record, preceding the date on which decision is to be taken would be of more value, qualitatively. What is to be examined is the “overall performance” on the basis of “entire service record” to come to the conclusion as to whether the concerned employee has become a deadwood and it is public interest to retire him compulsorily. The Authority must consider and examine the overall effect of the entries of the officer concerned and not an isolated entry, as it may well be in some cases that in spite of satisfactory performance, the Authority may desire to compulsorily retire an employee in public interest, as in the opinion of the said authority, the post has to be manned by a more efficient and dynamic person and if there is sufficient material on record to show that the employee “rendered himself a liability to the institution”, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere in the exercise of its limited power of judicial review.” 29. In State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel , (2001) 3 SCC 314 , at paragraph No.11 it was held as follows: “11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallized into definite principles, which could be broadly summarized thus: (i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record that is a fact in favour of the officer. (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.” The summary of the judgments cited above and the law laid down is that the authority must consider the entire record of the petitioner’s service before coming to the conclusion to compulsory retirement of the petitioner. 30. The contention of the petitioner is that the adverse remarks which are not communicated to the petitioner cannot be made basis for taking such decision of compulsory retirement. In fact, before passing the impugned order, the respondents supplied the adverse remarks and he also filed the representation, and the same was stood rejected by the Committee of Judges. But, as per the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurdas Singh’s case and Umed bhai M.Patel’s case, an un-communicated entry in the confidential reports can be considered at the time of the compulsory retirement. Hence, the contention of the petitioner does not hold good. The Administrative Committee has rightly passed the resolution to retire the petitioner from service. This Bench is of the opinion that there is nothing adverse to interfere with the findings of the Administrative Committee and issuance of the impugned G.O. by the Government. 31. On perusal of the entire ACRs and work review statement placed before the Administrative Committee, the Administrative Committee appears to have passed a resolution on 27.09.2012. Basing on the report of the Administrative Committee, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.105 Law (LA & SC-F), dated 25.09.2012, recommending the petitioner to retire on completion of 58 years of age i.e., on 30.09.2012 AN. 32. On perusal of the proceedings of the Administrative Committee, as extracted above, in the earlier paragraphs it would clearly show that the case of the petitioner was reviewed by the committee comprising of eight Senior most Judges including the Chief Justice after considering on over all evaluation of entire service profile including the rate of disposal, quality of the judgments, records pertaining to the noting as to ‘integrity’ by the concerned District Judges, and Port Folio Judges and Administrative Judges. The complaints received from time to time and the action taken as against and also the Vigilance report in respect of the petitioner after having considered the entire work performance and confidential reports only thereafter it was decided to pass the impugned order. Hence, we do not require any interference, as it is based on the sufficient material to come to such a decision. 33. Hence, for the said reasons and the circumstances stated, the writ petition of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 34. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.