- (1.)By a communication dated 17.5.2000 issued by the Registrar General of the Patna High Court the respondent herein was informed that he would retire from the service on completion of 58 years of age. The said communication of the Registrar General was, inter alia, based on a decision of the High Court on the administrative side taken in a meeting of the Full Court held on 6.5.2000 wherein the decision of its Evaluation Committee dated 2.5.2000 not to extend the service of the respondent beyond the age of 58 years was approved. All the aforesaid decisions being challenged, were set aside by the High Court by its order dated 20.2.2001 and the matter was directed to be reconsidered. Aggrieved, the High Court is in appeal before us.
(2.)A perusal of the order under challenge goes to show that two reasons, in the main, had prevailed upon the High Court to arrive at the impugned conclusion.
The first is that the negative remarks/adverse comments recorded in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the respondent on 15.12.1995 were not communicated to the respondent and the foundational facts for the said remarks are wholly unsubstantiated. It was also found by the High Court that the standing committee of the High Court on 03.01.1997 had decided not to pursue the matter but to treat the same as closed. The High Court also took the view that notwithstanding the said remarks the respondent was subsequently promoted to the post of District & Sessions Judge and also granted the selection grade. The aforesaid facts, according to the High Court, had the effect of wiping out the adverse remarks dated 15.12.1995. The High Court, in the impugned order, also took note of the fact that the ACRs of the respondent for the subsequent years indicated that the respondent, over all, is a good officer with nothing adverse as to his integrity and reputation.

The other reason for which the High Court had come to the impugned conclusion is that while extension of service was refused to the respondent, one Mr. Udai Kant Thakur whose ACRs were decidedly inferior to that of the respondent was granted continuation after 58 years. It is on the aforesaid twin basis that the High Court had concluded that the denial of extension to the respondent necessitated interference in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.)We have heard Shri P.H. Parekh, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.