Shah, J. - (1.) Question involved in this petition is - Can, for any reason, it be held that Service Rule which provides that an officer who has no potential for continued useful service beyond a particular age, is invalid 'No' - will be the obvious answer for various reasons. Further, there can be no right of an employee to continue in service de hors statutory or administrative rule prescribing superannuation age and continuation in service could be only subject to the conditions provided. The question which requires consideration by the authorities is - Have we not reached a stage where services of Government or semi-Government employees should be regulated in such a way that only such persons who can render useful service be continued and not the indolent, infirm and those of doubtful integrity, reputation or utility Periodical exercise of reviewing or evaluating the utility is required for better administration and for removal of dead wood or persons having doubtful integrity and reputation.
(2.) Petitioner's case is that he was appointed on 14th January, 1981 by the High Court of Orissa as a temporary Munsif and he was confirmed in the said post on 21st December, 1985; he was promoted as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) in 1993 and was in service since then. It is his further case that in 1998 High Court of Orissa conducted review in respect of the petitioner as per Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code and allowed him to remain in service up to the date of completion of the age of 58 years. On 28th January, 2000, he received a copy of the confidential letter from the Registrar (Administration), High Court of Orissa addressed to the Secretary, Law Department, Government of Orissa conveying the decision of the High Court of Orissa that as per Rule 71(a-1) of the Orissa Service Code, petitioner should be retired from Government service on attaining the age of 58 years i.e. on 30th June, 2000. It is his say that on receipt of the said confidential letter, he submitted a representation by letter dated 3-4-2000 to the High Court seeking reconsideration of his case by pointing out that this Court has enhanced the age of superannuation of judicial officers to 60 years and pointed out the decision of this Court in Rajat Baran Roy v. State of W. B., (1999) 4 SCC 235. But there was no response. It is his contention that he has a clean record qua integrity and efficiency and there is no adverse entry or remark ever made in his confindential record. Thereafter, the petitioner received a notification dated 11-5-2000 from the Law Department of Government of Orissa notifying the State Government's decision to retire him from the Government service on attaining the age of 58 years. Hence, he has approached this Court by filing writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
(3.) At the time of hearing this petition, Mr. A. S. Nambiar, learned senior counsel submitted that the Rule 71(a-1) is against the decision rendered by this Court in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 119 and a subsequent clarification given by this Court in review application in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288.;