- (1.) By means of this peti ­tion Sri Nirmal Kumar Jain, Additional District and Sessions Judge Saharanpur has challenged the order No. 3637/2 -4 -97 -26/2(28)/87 dated 4th June, 1997, whereby the State Government have compulsorily retired Sri Jain with effect from 19th August, 1997. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order and has also sought for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering the petitioner in the continuance of service till he attains the age of 60years.
(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as Munsif Magistrate in Uttar Pradesh Nyayik Seva and he joined on 6th December, 1976. He was confirmed on 24 -7 -1982. He was promoted to the next higher rank of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 4 -12 -1985. The petitioner was promoted to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service as Ad ­ditional District and Sessions Judge on 27 -5 -1996. The petitioner claims to have an impeccable service record. He alleged that no adverse entry was ever communi ­cated to him. The petitioner claims that his integrity was never questioned or doubted at any stage. The petitioner's case is that he will be completing 60 years of age on 19th August, 1999 and will superan ­nuate from service on 31st August, 1999 being the last day of the month in which he attains the age of superannuation. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the age of superannuation was raised by the State Government in compliance of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India and others, 1992 (1) SCC 119 and U.P. Judicial Officers (Retirement on Su ­perannuation) Rules, 1992 were notified on 20 -10 -92 enhancing the age for the retirement of the Judicial Officers from 58 years to 60 years. These rules have overrid ­ing effect on the U.P. Fundamental Rule 56 contained in Financial Hand Book Volume II, Parts 2 to 4, wherein the age of the retirement of the other Government servants is specified as 58 years. It is al ­leged on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 4th June, 1997 is illegal and is not based on any material. It is alleged that the impugned order is ar ­bitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. The petition has been contested on behalf of the High Court, respondent No. 2. The counter -affidavit has been filed on its behalf by Sri Tariq Manzoor Khan, Of ­ficer on Special Duty (Litigation), High Court, Allahabad. It is admitted that the petitioner was appointed under Rule 22(3) of U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 by means of order dated 27 -3 -96. It has been averred that the Apex Court while reviewing the judgment in All India Judges Association's case, JT 1993 (4) SC 618, observed that the benefit of the in -crease of the retirement age of Judicial Officers to 60 years was not to be made automatically available to all Judicial Of ­ficers and the benefit was to be made available only to those who have a poten ­tial for continued useful service in the opinion of the respective High Courts. It is averred that in pursuance of the judgment of the Apex Court the Screening Commit ­tee consisting of Hon'ble the Chief Justice as Chairman and two Hon'ble Judges con ­sidered the case of the petitioner. The Committee was of the opinion that the petitioner was not suitable for con ­tinuance in service beyond the age of 58 years and he should retire on 19th August, 1997, which ultimately resulted in the passing of the impugned order by the State Government. It is thus pleaded that it is a case unfit for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) A supplementary -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 by Sri TM. Khan alleging that the order passed by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge VI on 30 -8 -86 was also considered by the Committee, though no further ac ­tion was decided to be taken as such on 30 -8 -86.;