- (1.) The petitioner, being a member of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service, has challenged the order of his compulsory retirement dated 17th May 2005 passed by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh under Fundamental Rule 56 on the recommendation of the Allahabad High Court.
(2.) The first ground of challenge argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was promoted to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service on 13th June 1988 and was confirmed in that cadre as Additional District Judge on 16th April 1992. It was argued that any adverse entry awarded to the petitioner prior to the date of confirmation i.e. 16th April 1992 must be ignored. It was argued from the petitioner's side, although the argument is factually not correct, that after the date of confirmation i.e. 16th April 1992, till his compulsory retirement on 17th May 2005, there was nothing adverse against the petitioner in his service record.
(3.) Reliance was placed from the petitioner's side, apparently without reading the full text, upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. P.S. Dhillon, (1996) 3 S.C.C. 672. . An extract from paragraph 15 of the said law report is quoted below to show that the contention for disregarding the pre-confirmation entries raised by the petitioner is not correct and is contrary to law declared by the Supreme Court. "Keeping in view the circumstances attendant to his confirmation as member of the ITAT with effect from 1-4-1985, we are unable to agree with the tribunal that after such confirmation the adverse material on the record for the period prior to 1-4-1985 should be disregarded. In our opinion, the entire service record of the respondent including the record for the period prior to 1-4-1985 had to be taken into consideration by the appropriate authority........";