LexHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA, THROUGH R.G. versus SHYAM DEO SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014) 4 S.C.R. 541 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA, THROUGH R.G v. SHYAM DEO SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2529 of 2002) MARCH 28, 2014 [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] A B Service Law - Judicial Service - Entitlement to C continuation! extension of service beyond the age of 58 years - Manner of determination - Bihar Superior Judicial Service - Denial of extension to respondent-Judicial Officer beyond the age of 58 years - If justified - Held: The entitlement to continuation! extension of service of a judicial officer beyond D the age of 58 has to be determined on the basis of the service record of the particular officer under consideration and not on a comparative assessment with the record of other officers - Even if the ACRs of another officer were decidedly inferior to those of the respondent, the same, at best, may have E relevance to the grant of extension to such officer without conferring any right or entitlement to the respondent for a similar extension - In the present case, though there were adverse remarks/comments dated 15. 12. 1995 against the respondent, but the same were not acted upon and moreover, F the subsequent ACRs of respondent were sufficiently positive and depicted him as an efficient Judicial Officer with good reputation for honesty and impartiality - Also, promotion to the highest level in the District judiciary as well as selection grade in the said cadre was granted to the respondent - The G said promotions had the effect of wiping out the adverse remark dated 15. 12. 1995 - The High Court, on the administrative side, therefore, was not justified in refusing to continue with the service of the respondent beyond the age 541 H 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 4 S.C.R. A of 58 years - However, a period of nearly 14 years has elapsed in the meantime and it will be highly inequitable to request the High Court to redo the exercise at this belated stage - Besides such a course of action will also be unnecessary - Respondent to be treated to have retired from B service on completion of 60 years of age and all consequential benefits, including pay and pension on that basis, directed to be made available to him forthwith and without any delay. Service Law - Judicial Service - Potential for continued C useful service of Judicial Officer beyond the age of 58 years - Evaluation and assessment - Judicial Review - Scope - Held: Evaluation of service record of a judicial officer for the purpose of formation of an opinion as to his/her potential for continued useful service is required to be made by the High D Court which means the Full Court on the administrative side - The ultimate decision is always preceded by an elaborate consideration of the matter by Hon'ble Judges of the High Court who are familiar with the qualities and attributes of the judicial officer under consideration - The very process by E which the decision is eventually arrived at, should permit a limiteq judicial review - It is only in a rare case where the decision taken is unsupported by any material or the same reflects a conclusion which, on the face of it, cannot be sustained that judicial review would be permissible. F By a communication issued by the Registrar General of the Patna High Court, the respondent was informed that he would retire from the service on completion of 58 years of age. The said communication of the Registrar General was, inter alia, based on a decision of the High G Court on the administrative side taken in a meeting of the Full Court wherein the decision of its Evaluation Committee not to extend the service of the respondent beyond the age of 58 years was approved. All the aforesaid decisions being challenged, were set aside by H HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA, THROUGH 543 R.G. v. SHYAM DEO SINGH the High Court by the impugned order dated 20-2-2001 A and the matter was directed to be reconsidered. Two reasons, in the main, had prevailed upon the High Court to arrive at the impugned conclusion. The first is that the negative rei:narks/adverse comments recorded 8 in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the respondent on 15.12.1995 were not communicated to the respondent and that the standing committee of the High Court on 03.01.1997 had decided not to pursue the matter. The High Court also took the view that notwithstanding C the said remarks the respondent was subsequently promot
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.