G.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) - Both these writ petitions have been filed by Sri Abu Saad, who, on the dates when the impugned orders were passed, was officiating as District Judge, Ballia. In writ petition No. 1677 of 1910 the petitioner has challenged an order reverting him from his officiating post of District judge to that of Civil and Sessions Judge. In writ petition No. 4861 of 1970 the petitioner has challenged an order compulsorily retiring him from service under the first proviso to Fundamental Rule 56 (a) .
(2.) The petitioner was selected in the U.P. Judicial Service in the year 1942 on the basis of a competitive examination. He was posted as a Munsif in 1942 in which post he was confirmed in August, 1944. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as Civil Judge in which post lie was confirmed with effect from April 1, 1955. Thereafter he was appointed as temporary Civil and Sessions Judge after being selected to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service. In 1962 the petitioner was posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge. He continued to hold this post at Bulandshar, Meerut, Jhansi and then at Varanasi. In 1967 he was posted as District Judge, Banda and in 1969 he was posted as District Judge, Ballia,. It appears that Government was not satisfied about the suitability of the petitioner for appointment as a District Judge. By a telegram dated September 23, 1967, the Chief Secretary to the Government enquired from the High Court about the number and date of the High Court's letters proposing the initial promotion of the petitioner as Additional District judge and about sanction of the Government for the same. The information sought by this telegram was sent by the Registrar. Thereupon by a letter dated October 21/23, 1967. Government informed the High Court that it had come to the conclusion that the petitioner's work was not such as would justify his continuance as Additional District and Sessions judge and intimated its decision to revert the petitioner as Civil and Sessions Judge. Nothing seems to have been done by the High Court in this matter and on September 8, 1969. Government sent another telegram to the High Court requesting it to implement Government's earlier decision to revert the petitioner. The matter was then placed before the Administrative committee of the High Court on October 10, 1969, at which it was decided that there were not sufficient grounds for the reversion of the petitioner. Accordingly Government was informed of this and was requested to reconsider the matter. In the mean time the High Court made certain remarks in the petitioner's character roll which adverse to him. On a representation made by the petitioner, the adverse remarks were expunged and a normal entry of satisfactory work was entered in the character roll. In spite of the decision of the Administrative Committee, Government again wrote to the High Court that it was still firmly of opinion that the petitioner was not fit to be continued on the higher post of District and Sessions Judge. The matter was again considered by the Administrative Committee on January 27, 1970, and it was resolved that the amended entry in the petitioner's character roll be forwarded to Government and Government be requested to reconsider the matter in the light of amended entry. In spite of all this Government by its letter dated March 16, 1970, informed the High Court that Government had given careful consideration to the matter and was still of the view that the petitioner was not fit to be continued on the post of District and Sessions Judge. It requested the High Court to revert the petitioner and to inform the Government that this had been clone. Thereupon the Registrar of the High Court wrote to the petitioner on April 20. 1970, informing him that it had been decided to revert him as Civil and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur. The petitioner was directed to hand over charge of his post at Ballia immediately and to proceed to Gorakhpur after availing of the usual joining time. The petitioner thereupon filed writ petition No. 1677 of 1970 before this Court on April 27, 1970. The writ petition was admitted on April 30. 1970, and on the same day an order was passed staying the operation of the order of reversion against the petitioner. This writ petition was directed to be listed for final hearing on July 20, 1970. It appears that several adjournments were sought by the respondents on the ground that the Advocate General, who had been instructed to appear in the case for respondents, was not available.
(3.) Some time in April 1970 Government sent a list of Officers of the Higher Judicial Service, who were likely to attain the age of 55 years or had crossed that age to the High Court requesting it to review the work and conduct of such Officers and to report to Government on the suitability or otherwise of further retention of these Officers in service. By June 6, 1970, the names of twenty three such Officers were sent to the High Court included the name of the petitioner also. The matter was considered in the judges' meeting held on August 29, 1970, and it was decided that out of the twenty-three Officers, four Officers including the petitioner should be compulsorily retired. This decision was conveyed to the Government by a letter dated September 3, 1970. Government accepted the recommendations of the High Court and passed an order on September 29, 1970, compulsorily retiring the petitioner on the expiry of three months from the date of the receipt of this order. This order was passed under the first proviso to clause (a) of Fundamental Rule 56. which was introduced by the U.P. Fundamental Rule 56 (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 5 of 1970). Against the order of compulsory retirement the petitioner filed writ petition No. 4861 of 1970 on October 13, 1970. The writ petition was admitted on the same day. This petition was directed to be heard along with writ petition No. 1677 of 1970.;