LexHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, PATNA versus SHIVESHWAR NARAYAN AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 15 {ADDL.) S.C.R. 51
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATU~E. PATNA
v.
SHIVESHWAR NARAYAN AND ANR.
'
.
(Civil Appeal No. 6103 of 2005)
SEPTEMBER 22, 2011
[R.M. LODHA AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226 - Judicial review
A
B
- Scope of -Benefit of increase of retirement age from 58
years to 60 years - Denied to Judicial Officer 'S' on basis of c
report of Evaluation Committee (constituted by the High
Court) as accepted and approved by the Full Court of the
High Court - 'S' filed writ petition - Division Bench of High
Court allowed the same and directed the High Court on its
administrative side to re-evaluate the case of 'S' for extension 0
of service upto 60 years - Whether the Division Bench of the
High Court was justified in its power of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the unanimous
administrative decision of the Full Court - Held: The Division
Bench of the High Court considered the matter as if it was E
sitting in appeal over the decision of the High Court on
administrative side which was not permissible - The Division
Bench failed to keep in mind the distinction between judicial
review and merit review and, thereby committed a serious
error in examining the merits of the decision of the Full Court
F
- Even if, some other view was possible on the material that
was considered by the Evaluation Committee and the Full
Court to evaluate the case of 'S' for extension of
superannuation age to 60 years, that did riot justify
interference in the decision of the Full Court which was
founded on material and relevant considerations - There was
G
not even an iota of a/legation of bias or ma/a fides- nor it could
have been- against the decision making authority -
The
Division Bench of the High Court was, thus, clearly in error
in interfering with the decision of the High Court on
51
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A administrative side in not extending the benefit of
enhancement of retirement age of the Judicial Officer from 58
to 60 years - Judicial Service.
Judicial Service - Benefit of increase in retirement age
of Judicial Officer from 58 years to 60 years - Grant of -
B Considerations of continued usefulness in service - Held: A
Judicial Officer may have a service record. not tainted by
many adverse remarks; he may have got promotion from
time to time but still he may be found to be Jacking in
potential for continued useful service - In assessing potential
C for continued useful service, the entire record of service,
character rolls, quality of judgments are of considerable
importance - At the same time, over-all reputation of a Judge
in the entire period of service, his judicial conduct, objective
and impartial performance throughout his career are the
D relevant factors which also have to be kept in mind.
'S', a Judicial officer prayed for extension of his
retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. In light of the
decision in All India Judges' Association case, the Chief
Justice of the Patna High Court constituted an Evaluation
E Committee for assessment and evaluation of the service
records of sixteen judicial officers including 'S', to find
out whether they had potential for continued useful
service upto 60 years. The Evaluation Committee finally
resolved that 'S' did not have the potential for co"ttinued
F useful service after attaining the age of 58 years. The
report of the Evaluation Committee was unanimously
accepted by the Full Court of the High Court and thus 'S'
was denied the benefit of increase in retirement age. 'S'
filed writ petition before a Division Bench of the High
G Court which allowed the same and directed the High
Court on its administrative side to re-evaluate his case for
extension of service from 58 to 60 years.
H
The question which arose for consideration in the
instant appeal was whether the Division Bench of the
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, PATNA v.
53 ·
SHIVESHWAR NARAYAN
High Court was justified in its power of judicial review
A
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere
with the unanimous administrative decision of the Full
Court.
Allowing the appeal filed by High Court of Judicature,
Patna and dismissing the appeal filed by Judicial officer
8
'S', the Court
HELD: 1. The primary consideration for the High
Court in extending benefit of increase in the retirement
age of the Judicial Officer is his contiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.