- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Appellant had joined Bihar Administrative Services (Judicial Branch) as a Munsif in 1963. He came to be promoted as an Additional Sub-Judge in 1975 and was promoted as an Additional District and Sessions Judge in 1983. Taking note of his service record, he was confirmed in Bihar Superior Judicial Services with effect from 1.2.1987. The appellant was promoted as District and Sessions Judge in 1991 and was sent on deputation as Secretary, Bihar Legislative Council with effect from 9th December, 1994. On attaining the age of 58 years, the appellant was retired from service without being given the benefit of an extension of two years. According to the High Court the service record of the appellant had been seen and it was decided not to give him benefit of two years extension i. e. from the age of 58 years to the age of 60. The appellant questioned the refusal to grant him benefit of two years extension. The writ petition was resisted by the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court took note of the fact that case of the appellant had been considered by a Review Committee constituted for reviewing cases for grant of extension which had not favoured grant of extension to the appellant and the Full Court had agreed with the Review Committee. The Bench also took note of the judgment in All India Judges' Association case and itself examined the entire service record of the appellant. The High Court opined : "Entire service record has been noticed in the judgment. It cannot be gainsaid that the petitioner has an exceptionally good service record and he was never communicated any adverse remark throughout his judicial career. This naturally leads to a valid interference that the denial of the extension of service to the petitioner was founded on extraneous consideration which has not been disclosed by the High Court in the counter affidavit. I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that no reasonable body of persons would have held that the petitioner had outlived his utility for extension of service. The decision on the face of it is extremely arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. "
(3.) After having come to the conclusion as aforesaid the Division Bench also found that the order of the High Court passed on the administrative side not to grant extension to the appellant was an arbitrary order and was not sustainable. The High Court, however, declined to grant any relief to the appellant on the ground that during the pendency of his writ petition in the High Court he had, in any case, crossed the age of 60 years and in the opinion of the Division Bench, the matter could not be remanded to the Full Bench for consideration of grant of extension which was then not possible. In the words of the Division Bench : "The next question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner can be granted relief for which he has filed this writ application. This Court has no power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant extension of service to the petitioner. We can only remit the matter to the Full Court for fresh decision. The petitioner has now crossed the age of 60 years hence it would be futile to request the Full Court reconsider the case of the petitioner. . I would, however, like to emphasis that the decision of the High Court not to grant extension to the petitioner is no reflection on the character, efficiency or integrity of the petitioner to debar the petitioner from re-employment in government service or elsewhere. ";