HAVERI SWAMIRAYACHAR S/O SUBANNACHAR, PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners who were the members of the Karnataka State Judicial Service, in the cadre of District Judge and Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) respectively, seek issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notification dated 13.05.2008 issued by the 1st respondent -State of Karnataka and for a mandamus to the respondents, to continue them in active service till they complete the age of 60 years and for consequential reliefs.

(2.) THE 3rd respondent, Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, had sent a communication to the District Surgeon, Bangalore City, to examine the judicial officers named therein and to furnish immediately, a certificate as to whether, they are medically 0t to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years, for taking further action as per Rule 95 -A of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, 1958 (for short 'Rules'). Thereafter, petitioners have received a copy of the notification dated 13.05.2008 of the 1st respondent, whereby sanction/permission was accorded to retire them from service under Rule 95 -A of the Rules on they completing the age of 58 years, with effect from 31.05.2008.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that, the 1st petitioner having received Annexures A and B communications, issued by the 3rd respondent, communicating the adverse remarks recorded in the confidential records, submitted the representation for expunging the adverse remarks, which was not considered and disposed of within the period of three months, in view of which, the adverse remarks should be deemed to have been expunged. In support of the contention, he relied upon the order dated 20.03.2008 passed in writ petition No. 9118/2000, in the case of Sri. S.K. Venkata Reddy v. State of Karnataka and Ors. Learned Counsel pointed out that, in the said decision it has been held that, Rule 10(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Performance Reports) Rules, 1994 mandate the reviewing authority or the accepting authority, to consider the representation and to pass suitable orders and communicate the same to the concerned officer, within three months from the date of receipt of the representation. Learned Counsel contended that, since the representation of 1st petitioner was not considered in terms of the said order, the adverse remarks as against the 1st petitioner are liable to be expunged. Learned Counsel further contended that, the impugned notification is not traceable to Rule 95 -A of the Rules, under which the same was purported to have been issued and that there is a fundamentally erroneous assumption that, the petitioners have attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2008, while under Rule 95 -A, the only requirement is that, the petitioners should be medically fit and certified, for being continued in service till they complete the age of 60 years. Learned Counsel contended that, the petitioners were subjected to medical examination and they having been found medically fit, the impugned notification amounts to compulsory retirement from service, in flagrant, violation of the Rules. Learned Counsel further contended that, the impugned action is arbitrary, irrational and has no basis, in that no objective material has been taken into consideration besides the confidential records for continuance of their service under Rule 95 -A of the Rule.