AJAY RASTOGI - (1.) BY way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned order of the Govt. of Rajasthan dt. 9.11.2000 whereby in pursuance of Rule 53(1) of Raj. Civil Service Pension Rules, 1996 (Rules 1996) he was compulsorily retired on recommendation of the High Court.
(2.) THE facts that culled out are that the petitioner was initially selected in Rajasthan Judicial Service and appointed as Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate vide order dt. 29.8.1974. He was promoted to the Higher Judicial Service and posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge vide order dt.16.5.1990 under R.22 of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 (Rules 1969) and was made substantive in the cadre of RHJS vide order dt.25.6.1999. While the petitioner was working as an officer of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, a committee of Hon 'ble Judges of this Court was constituted by Hon 'ble the Chief Justice vide order dt.22.8.2000 to consider the cases of such of the judicial officers of the State of Rajasthan who have become deadwood or lost it utility for compulsory retirement obviously who qualified pre conditions contemplated under R.53(1) of Rules 1996 and the committee in its meeting held on 28/29th August, 2000 considered the cases of good number of judicial officers including the petitioner and after examining overall record of service including personal and other files of the officer arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner became liability to the judicial service and public interest warrants compulsory retirement of the officer and accordingly recommended for his compulsory retirement which was placed before the Full Court and after due deliberation and discussions and perusing the overall service record/ACRs it was resolved to accept the report of the Committee and recommended petitioner 's compulsory retirement and consequently vide Govt. Order dt.9.11.2000, the petitioner was compulsorily retired under R.244(2) of RSR (Old)/ 53(1) of Rules 1996.
(3.) THE main thrust of counsel for the petitioner is that in the ACR of 1991 he was initially assessed as below average officer but on his representation, the word 'below ' was deleted but still the Committee considered the ACR of 1991 which was originally indicating his work performance as below average and that has prejudiced the mind of the Committee and further submits that his disposal of work remain good and consistent and in these facts and circumstances the subjective satisfaction of the committee arrived on the basis of service record for compulsory retirement is not based on valid material and such decision of becoming liability to the judicial service have no factual foundation and deserves to be quashed being an arbitrary exercise of power of the authority.;