- (1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order as contained it. Annexure 3 to the writ petition dated 17.7.2008 issued by the Respondent No. 4 whereby the Petitioner has been compulsorily retired from Subordinate Judicial Service prematurely upon completion of 50 years of age under Section 74(b)(2) of the Jharkhand Service Code.
(3.) The Petitioner was appointed as a Probationer Munsif at Civil Court Hajipur (Vaishali). The Petitioner had been working at Latehar as ACJM at the time when he was: compulsorily retired from service. Learned Counsel has contended that the powers under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code does not confer any unfettered or unbridled right upon the appointing authority to prematurely retire an. employee/officer on the ground that he has completed 50 years of age. It was further contended that to conclude that the Petitioner is liable to be retired prematurely in public interest would mean that his continuance or retention in service is not in public interest. Learned Counsel further contended that the character role of the Petitioner is unblemished and he has got adverse entries in his service record. So he is not liable to be singled out to suffer premature retirement.;