S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of compulsory retirement dated 21.5.1980 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), passed by opposite party No. 2 and the order dated 1.4.1981 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by Administrative Judge of the Hon'ble High Court.
(2.) Petitioner was appointed in the officiating capacity Apprentice (Clerk) w.e.f. 2.1.1946 in the Civil Court, Lucknow who was confirmed on the said post on 16.10.1952. In due course of time petitioner was promoted and was allowed to officiate as copyist on 18.2.1954 and thereafter by passage of time, petitioner was promoted as Reader/ Munsarim and at the time when the Impugned order was passed, petitioner was working as officiating Reader in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Lucknow.
(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that order as passed by the respondent No. 2 on 21.5.1980 compulsorily retiring the petitioner is arbitrary, perverse and lacks in bonafide. It has been further argued that there exists no material on the basis of which an opinion can be formed that continuance of the petitioner is not in the public Interest. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order is punitive in nature. To strengthen the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner takes the Court to the" pleadings as has been set forth in the writ petition. It has been stated in the writ petition that petitioner has entered into service in the year 1946 and till December. 1975. there has been absolutely no adverse entry in the character roll of the petitioner and all the entries were good. It is only in the year 1976 that two adverse entries were made in the character roll of the petitioner in very quick succession by the then District Judge Sri B.L. Goel. Giving of the adverse entries by the then District Judge within a span of three months, after the petitioner had completed 30 years of unblemished and clean record was motivated as the petitioner being an active member of the local Ministerial Staff Association has to Intervene in the ministerial staff welfare. In fact against the then District Judge Sri B. L. Goel. on account of his harassing attitude besides the employees who raised their grievances, the lawyers had also done strike. Petitioner all the time being active member of the ministerial staff association has to accompany Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava who was Secretary, in respect to the grievance of the employees who went on strike against the attitude of the learned District Judge upon which a message was received from the High Court through its Registrar about doing the needful, which has been detailed in para 6 of the writ petition. It is thereafter, the said Sri B. L. Goel was transferred from district Lucknow. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 29.1.1977 and thereafter in March, 1980, the Screening Committee met for considering the continuance of employees working in the Judgeship who has crossed fifty years but inspite of the aforesaid two adverse entries which was given by Sri B. L. Goel, the District Judge, petitioner was found to be worth of being retained in service. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it is in respect to an Incident dated 20.4.1980, while examination for the recruitment of the ministerial staff was going on account of some untoward situation, the members of the screening committee and the then District Judge Sri A. B. Mathur became annoyed against the petitioner and Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava, office-bearer of the Ministerial Staff Association and thus petitioner as well as Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava both have been taken to task and by the impugned exercise both were directed to be compulsory retired. According to the submission of the learned counsel, except two adverse entries given in quick succession of three months in the year 1976 by the then District Judge which has been demonstrated to be not fair, there exists no adverse material against the petitioner and. therefore, It cannot be said that the petitioner's continuance was not in the public interest. Lastly, it has been submitted that the action of compulsory retirement of Shyam Sunder Lal Srivastava whose case was identically situated have been finally allowed by this Court on 2.3.1998 vide Writ Petition No, 770 of 1982. On the aforesaid premises, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Impugned order of compulsory retirement as passed against the petitioner be quashed.;