C.Y. Illur and anr. Vs. High Court of Karnataka and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
karnataka state civil service rules, 1978, (as amended by the karnataka civil services) first amendment, rules, 1997 - ruie-95-a-retirement of district and sessions judges on their attaining the age of 58 years-pleaded against-challenge to-vires of the amended rule-held-the law as on today which governs the age of retirement of district judges and the procedure prescribed for extending the benefit of increase of retirement age to 60 years, is contained in rule 95-a-it is only on assessment and evaluation of the record of the judicial officer, his eligibility to continue after he attains the age of 58 years till 60 years is to be granted-further held-the recommendations of the commission as approved by the supreme court in third judges' case is not applicable to the petitioners as yet and it is the law declared by the supreme court in the second judges case which is the binding law as on today.;writ petitions dismissed. - adverse possession: [k. ramanna, j] suit property fell to share of defendant in partition suit revenue records disclosing possession of suit property in favour of plaintiff - no document or deed produced to prove source of title - no evidence produced to show why name of plaintiff entered into revenue record or how she became owner held, mere entry in revenue record will not confer any title to plaintiff or he cannot be termed as owner of suit property, unless title to suit property by adverse possession, is proved. limitation act (36 of 1963)articles 64 & 65 :[k. ramanna,j] adverse possession - suit property fell to share of defendant in partition suit revenue records disclosing possession of suit property in favour of plaintiff - no document or deed produced to prove source of title - no evidence produced to show why name of plaintiff entered into revenue record or how she became owner held, mere entry in revenue record will not confer any title to plaintiff or he cannot be termed as owner of suit property, unless title to suit property by adverse possession, is proved. - the high court should undertake and complete the exercise in case of officers about to attain the age of 58 years well-within time by following the procedure for compulsory retirement as laid down in the respective service rules applicable to the judicial officers. --(1) the high court of karnataka should assess and evaluate the record of the judicial officer for his continued utility well-within the time before he attains the age of 58 years by following the procedure for the compulsory retirement under the service rules applicable to him and give him the benefit of the extended superannuation age from 58 to 60 years, only if he is found fit and eligible to continue in service; it has to be independently followed under the respective rules'.6. the commission also took note of the rules framed by the various high courts in terms of the directions issued in the second judges' case and then recommended to delete these rules made by the high courts incorporating the directions of the supreme court in the second judges' case for compulsory retirement at the age of 58 years. the commission also recommended the retirement age of district judges as 62 and suggested to review for compulsory retirement once in 5 years at the age of 50, 55 and 60 years under the respective service rules made for the purpose. in those circumstances, as the challenge to the impugned orders fails for the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions also fail.ordern. kumar, j.1. petitioners in all these writ petitions were working as district and sessions judges at various places. they have challenged in these writ petitions the impugned order retiring them from service on their attaining the age of 58 years in terms of rule 95-a of the karnataka civil services rules, 1958 as amended by the karnataka civil services (first amendment) rules, 1997 which is made retrospective from 1st january, 1993. they have also challenged the vires of this amended rule on the ground that it is ultra vires as being contrary to the law declared by the hon'ble supreme court of india.2. the supreme court in the case of all india judges' association v. union of india and ors. : (1993)illj723sc which is for short known as the 'first judges' case', has held that the age of retirement of judicial officers should be 60 years. they issued a direction to all the states and union territories to make appropriate alterations under the rules, in respect of judicial service, so as to fix the age of retirement at 60 years with effect from 31st december, 1992. the union of india and various states filed applications for review of this order. on such application, the supreme court reconsidered the said order, by order dated 24th august, 1993 which is for short known as the 'second judges' case' reported in all india judges' association and ors. v. union of india and ors. : (1993)iillj776sc .in the said order it was stated that the benefit of increase of the retirement age to 60 years shall not be available automatically to all the judicial officers irrespective of their past record of service and evidence of their continued utility of the judicial system. the benefit will be available to those, who, in the opinion of the respective high courts have potential for continued useful service. it is not intended as a windfall for the indolent, the infirm, and those of doubtful integrity, reputation and utility. the potential for continued utility shall be assessed and evaluated by appropriate committees of the judges of the respective high courts constituted and headed by the chief justices of the high courts and the evaluation shall be made on the basis of the judicial officer's past record of service, character rolls, quality of judgment and other relevant matters. the high court should undertake and complete the exercise in case of officers about to attain the age of 58 years well-within time by following the procedure for compulsory retirement as laid down in the respective service rules applicable to the judicial officers. those who are not found fit as eligible by this standard, should not be given the benefit of the higher retirement age and should be compulsorily retired at the age of 58, by following the said procedure for compulsory retirement. the exercise should be undertaken before the attainment of the age of 58 years, even in cases where earlier the age of superannuation was less than 58 years. it was made it clear that this assessment is for the purpose of finding out the suitability of the concerned officers for the entitlement of the increased age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. it is in addition to the assessment to be undertaken for compulsory retirement and the compulsory retirement at the earlier stage/s under the respective service rules. the court also made it clear that the directions issued are mere aids and incidental to and supplemental of the main direction and intended as a transitional measure till a comprehensive national policy is evolved. these directions, to the extent they go, are both reasonable and necessary.3. the government of karnataka in obedience to the directions issued by the supreme court in the aforesaid case amended the karnataka civil services rules by inserting rule 95-a. the aforesaid rule read as under:95-a. the age of retirement of judicial officers shall be raised to 60 years subject to the following conditions, namely.--(1) the high court of karnataka should assess and evaluate the record of the judicial officer for his continued utility well-within the time before he attains the age of 58 years by following the procedure for the compulsory retirement under the service rules applicable to him and give him the benefit of the extended superannuation age from 58 to 60 years, only if he is found fit and eligible to continue in service;(2) if found not fit, and ineligible he should be compulsorily retired on his attaining the age of 58 years;(3) the assessment as indicated above should be done before the attainment of the age of 58 years;(4) the above assessment is for evaluating the eligibility to continue in service beyond 58 years of age and is in addition to and independent of the assessment for compulsory retirement that may have to be undertaken as per the relevant service rules;(5) those judicial officers, who are not desirous of availing of the benefit of enhanced superannuation age with the condition of compulsory retirement at the age of 58 years may give an option to retire at the age of 58 years and such an option shall be exercised in writing by the judicial officer before he attains the age of 57 years;(6) such of the judicial officers who do not exercise the said option mentioned above before attaining the age of 57 years, shall be deemed to have opted for continuing in service till the enhanced superannuation age of 60 years with the liability to compulsory retirement at the age of 58 years;(7) the benefit of the increase of the retirement age to 60 years shall not be available automatically to all judicial officers irrespective of their past record of service and evidence of their continued utility to the judicial system. the benefit will be available to those who in the opinion of the high court have a potential for continued useful service. the potential for continued utility shall be assessed and evaluated by appropriate committees of judges of the high court constituted and headed by the chief justice of the high court and the evaluation shall be made on the basis of the judicial officers past record of service, character rolls, quality of judgments and other relevant matters.explanation.--for the purpose of this rule judicial officer means 'district judge or civil judge (senior division) or civil judge (junior division), belonging to the karnataka judicial service.4. the said rule was given effect to retrospectively from 1st january, 1993. it is not in dispute that all these petitioners completed the age of 58 years on the respective dates as mentioned in the impugned order. it is in pursuance of this rule, after assessment and evaluation of the record of the petitioners as their services was not found fit and eligible to continue in service, they were not extended the benefit of continuation of service upto the age of 60 years. it is relevant to point out here, that on 21-3-1996 pursuant to the directions issued by the supreme court in the aforesaid second judges case, the government of india by a resolution, constituted the first national judicial pay commission (for short referred to as 'commission'), under the chairmanship of mr. justice k. jagannatha shetty to evolve the principles which should govern the structure of pay and other emoluments of judicial officers belonging to the subordinate judiciary all over the country; to examine and recommend in respect of minimum qualifications, age of recruitment, method of recruitment, etc., for judicial officers. it was made clear that the relevant provisions of the constitution and the directions of the supreme court in the ml india judges' association's case referred to supra and other cases had to be kept in view, commission submitted its final report on 11-11-1999. by order dated 14-12-1999, the state governments and the union territories were directed to send their responses to the union of india so that it could correlate the responses and indicate its own stand on the recommendations of the commission. on receipt of the said responses and after hearing all the parties concerned and after going through the entire report of the commission, the supreme court subject to the modifications suggested in the said judgment accepted all other recommendations of the commission in their judgment dated 21st march, 2002 which is known as 'third judges' case' which is reported in all india judges' association and ors. v. union of india and ors. : [2002]2scr712 5. in the said report, the commission has observed that, 'with all humility, we may say so, the apex court's direction to review the cases of judicial officers at the age of 58 for giving them the benefit of two years is uncalled for. we cannot assess the suitability of the officers for giving the benefit of two years within the age of superannuation in addition to the assessment to be undertaken for compulsory retirement at the earlier stages under the relevant service rules. such a review may be necessary for, if extension of two years is to be given after the age of retirement. within the age of retirement every officer has a right to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation, unless he is removed by the procedure known to law. that procedure should not be linked for giving the benefit of extended age of superannuation. it has to be independently followed under the respective rules'.6. the commission also took note of the rules framed by the various high courts in terms of the directions issued in the second judges' case and then recommended to delete these rules made by the high courts incorporating the directions of the supreme court in the second judges' case for compulsory retirement at the age of 58 years. on the contrary, it was suggested to all high courts to make a rule specifying only the superannuation age without any condition. the commission also recommended the retirement age of district judges as 62 and suggested to review for compulsory retirement once in 5 years at the age of 50, 55 and 60 years under the respective service rules made for the purpose. though the supreme court did not agree with the recommendations of the commission to fix the age of retirement as 62, it accepted the recommendation to fix the age as 60. the supreme court also made it clear that except insofar as the modifications made by them in their judgment, all other recommendations of the commission were accepted.7. relying on this observation of the supreme court, it was contended that the rules framed in particular rule 95-a is ultra vires, as it is contrary to the judgment of the supreme court which is the law declared under article 141 of the constitution. secondly, it was contended that the age of retirement is 60 years and the question of extension from 58 years to 60 years would not arise.8. as is clear from the second judges' case the directions issued by the supreme court are only mere aids and incidental to and supplemental of the main direction and intended as a transitional measure till a comprehensive national policy is evolved. admittedly, till today, no national policy is evolved. similarly, no rules have been framed by the high court or the state government giving effect to the recommendations of the commission as approved by the supreme court in the third judges' case. therefore, the question is, in the absence of a national policy and in the absence of the rules framed in terms of report of the commission and the third judges' case, how petitioners case should have been considered, on their attaining the age of 58 years.9. in fact, the supreme court was faced with such a situation in the case of s.d. singh v. jharkhand high court jt 2005(10) sc 453. relying on the judgment of the supreme court in the case of rajat baran roy v. state of west bengal and ors. : [1999]2scr618 , where the rules enhancing the age of 60 years had been framed, it was held that once rules have been framed, the directions given by the court would not apply. therefore, where necessary service rules had been framed extending the age of retirement, the procedure prescribed in second judges' case would be inapplicable and the concerned officers would continue in service. however, it was made clear, that, if there were no rules framed, then the judicial officers were to continue in service till the age of 60 years in accordance with the directions of the supreme court in the second judges' case, provided the officers, on a scrutiny of their service records in accordance with the directions issued in the second judges' case were found suitable for the benefit of extended service. it was also made clear that the directions given in the second judges' case has to yield to the new rules and therefore it was no longer incumbent upon the high court to resort to the procedure on scrutiny of the service records of all judicial officers before allowing them the benefit of extension in the age of retirement. it was also held in the said judgment that the decision in the third judges' case did hot interfere with or modify the directions given in 1993 in the second judges' case, and the same would continue to prevail till the rules are framed in terms of the third judges' case, where the recommendations of the commission was accepted.10. in fact, in the recommendations of the commission, the commission has spelt out how these service conditions have to be regulated till new rules are framed. it is stated as under:we have indicated that once such a rule is made the said directions of the supreme court need not be followed for review of cases of judicial officers as observed by the supreme court in rajat baran roy and ors. v. state of west bengal and ors. : [1999]2scr618 .11. therefore, it is clear that .as on today no national policy is evolved and no rules are framed. therefore, till the national policy is evolved and rules are framed in conformity with the recommendations of the commission as approved by the supreme court in third judges' case, the question of giving effect to the recommendations of the commission prescribing 60 years as the age of retirement in place of 58 would not arise. it is only when rules are made in terms of the report of the commission, the law laid down by the supreme court in the second judges' case and the rules framed in pursuance of the said judgment as contained in rule 95-a of the rules would be in operative. rule 95-a is not deleted as suggested in the report of the commission. no new rules are framed in terms of the report. the law as on today which governs the age of retirement of district judges and the procedure prescribed for extending the benefit of increase of retirement age to 60 years, is as contained in rule 95-a. it is only on assessment and evaluation of the record of the judicial officer, his eligibility to continue after he attains the age of 58 years till 60 years is to be granted. the recommendations of the commission as approved by the supreme court in third judges' case is not applicable to them as yet and it is the law declared by the supreme court in the second judges' case which is the binding law as on today.12. therefore, the contention that in the light of the third judges' case, rule 95-a has become ultra vires and that these petitioners are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years and the question of evaluating and assessing their performances at the age of 58 years would not arise, has no substance. the case of all these petitioners have been considered in terms of the aforesaid rules and as they were found ineligible for continuation of their service till 60 years after they attained the age of 58 years, they have been compulsorily retired from service. it is legal and valid and strictly in accordance with law.13. except the aforesaid ground, no other grounds are urged challenging the impugned orders. in those circumstances, as the challenge to the impugned orders fails for the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions also fail. accordingly, these writ petitions are rejected.14. sri huleappa heroor, learned government advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.

Judgment:
ORDER

N. Kumar, J.

1. Petitioners in all these writ petitions were working as District and Sessions Judges at various places. They have challenged in these writ petitions the impugned order retiring them from service on their attaining the age of 58 years in terms of Rule 95-A of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958 as amended by the Karnataka Civil Services (First Amendment) Rules, 1997 which is made retrospective from 1st January, 1993. They have also challenged the vires of this amended Rule on the ground that it is ultra vires as being contrary to the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

2. The Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges' Association v. Union of India and Ors. : (1993)ILLJ723SC which is for short known as the 'First Judges' case', has held that the age of retirement of Judicial Officers should be 60 years. They issued a direction to all the States and Union Territories to make appropriate alterations under the Rules, in respect of judicial service, so as to fix the age of retirement at 60 years with effect from 31st December, 1992. The Union of India and various States filed applications for review of this order. On such application, the Supreme Court reconsidered the said order, by order dated 24th August, 1993 which is for short known as the 'Second Judges' case' reported in All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : (1993)IILLJ776SC .

In the said order it was stated that the benefit of increase of the retirement age to 60 years shall not be available automatically to all the Judicial Officers irrespective of their past record of service and evidence of their continued utility of the judicial system. The benefit will be available to those, who, in the opinion of the respective High Courts have potential for continued useful service. It is not intended as a windfall for the indolent, the infirm, and those of doubtful integrity, reputation and utility. The potential for continued utility shall be assessed and evaluated by appropriate committees of the Judges of the respective High Courts constituted and headed by the Chief Justices of the High Courts and the evaluation shall be made on the basis of the Judicial Officer's past record of service, character rolls, quality of judgment and other relevant matters. The High Court should undertake and complete the exercise in case of officers about to attain the age of 58 years well-within time by following the procedure for compulsory retirement as laid down in the respective service rules applicable to the Judicial Officers. Those who are not found fit as eligible by this standard, should not be given the benefit of the higher retirement age and should be compulsorily retired at the age of 58, by following the said procedure for compulsory retirement. The exercise should be undertaken before the attainment of the age of 58 years, even in cases where earlier the age of superannuation was less than 58 years. It was made it clear that this assessment is for the purpose of finding out the suitability of the concerned officers for the entitlement of the increased age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. It is in addition to the assessment to be undertaken for compulsory retirement and the compulsory retirement at the earlier stage/s under the respective Service Rules. The Court also made it clear that the directions issued are mere aids and incidental to and supplemental of the main direction and intended as a transitional measure till a comprehensive national policy is evolved. These directions, to the extent they go, are both reasonable and necessary.

3. The Government of Karnataka in obedience to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case amended the Karnataka Civil Services Rules by inserting Rule 95-A. The aforesaid Rule read as under:

95-A. The age of retirement of Judicial Officers shall be raised to 60 years subject to the following conditions, namely.--

(1) The High Court of Karnataka should assess and evaluate the record of the Judicial Officer for his continued utility well-within the time before he attains the age of 58 years by following the procedure for the compulsory retirement under the service rules applicable to him and give him the benefit of the extended superannuation age from 58 to 60 years, only if he is found fit and eligible to continue in service;

(2) If found not fit, and ineligible he should be compulsorily retired on his attaining the age of 58 years;

(3) The assessment as indicated above should be done before the attainment of the age of 58 years;

(4) The above assessment is for evaluating the eligibility to continue in service beyond 58 years of age and is in addition to and independent of the assessment for compulsory retirement that may have to be undertaken as per the relevant service rules;

(5) Those Judicial Officers, who are not desirous of availing of the benefit of enhanced superannuation age with the condition of compulsory retirement at the age of 58 years may give an option to retire at the age of 58 years and such an option shall be exercised in writing by the Judicial Officer before he attains the age of 57 years;

(6) Such of the Judicial Officers who do not exercise the said option mentioned above before attaining the age of 57 years, shall be deemed to have opted for continuing in service till the enhanced superannuation age of 60 years with the liability to compulsory retirement at the age of 58 years;

(7) The benefit of the increase of the retirement age to 60 years shall not be available automatically to all Judicial Officers irrespective of their past record of service and evidence of their continued utility to the judicial system. The benefit will be available to those who in the opinion of the High Court have a potential for continued useful service. The potential for continued utility shall be assessed and evaluated by appropriate committees of Judges of the High Court constituted and headed by the Chief Justice of the High Court and the evaluation shall be made on the basis of the Judicial Officers past record of service, character rolls, quality of judgments and other relevant matters.

Explanation.--For the purpose of this rule Judicial Officer means 'District Judge or Civil Judge (Senior Division) or Civil Judge (Junior Division), belonging to the Karnataka Judicial Service.

4. The said Rule was given effect to retrospectively from 1st January, 1993. It is not in dispute that all these petitioners completed the age of 58 years on the respective dates as mentioned in the impugned order. It is in pursuance of this Rule, after assessment and evaluation of the record of the petitioners as their services was not found fit and eligible to continue in service, they were not extended the benefit of continuation of service upto the age of 60 years. It is relevant to point out here, that on 21-3-1996 pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid second Judges case, the Government of India by a resolution, constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission (for short referred to as 'Commission'), under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty to evolve the principles which should govern the structure of pay and other emoluments of Judicial Officers belonging to the subordinate judiciary all over the country; to examine and recommend in respect of minimum qualifications, age of recruitment, method of recruitment, etc., for Judicial Officers. It was made clear that the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the directions of the Supreme Court in the Ml India Judges' Association's case referred to supra and other cases had to be kept in view, Commission submitted its final report on 11-11-1999. By order dated 14-12-1999, the State Governments and the Union Territories were directed to send their responses to the Union of India so that it could correlate the responses and indicate its own stand on the recommendations of the Commission. On receipt of the said responses and after hearing all the parties concerned and after going through the entire report of the Commission, the Supreme Court subject to the modifications suggested in the said judgment accepted all other recommendations of the Commission in their judgment dated 21st March, 2002 which is known as 'Third Judges' Case' which is reported in All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : [2002]2SCR712

5. In the said report, the Commission has observed that, 'with all humility, we may say so, the Apex Court's direction to review the cases of Judicial Officers at the age of 58 for giving them the benefit of two years is uncalled for. We cannot assess the suitability of the officers for giving the benefit of two years within the age of superannuation in addition to the assessment to be undertaken for compulsory retirement at the earlier stages under the relevant Service Rules. Such a review may be necessary for, if extension of two years is to be given after the age of retirement. Within the age of retirement every officer has a right to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation, unless he is removed by the procedure known to law. That procedure should not be linked for giving the benefit of extended age of superannuation. It has to be independently followed under the respective rules'.

6. The Commission also took note of the Rules framed by the various High Courts in terms of the directions issued in the Second Judges' case and then recommended to delete these Rules made by the High Courts incorporating the directions of the Supreme Court in the Second Judges' case for compulsory retirement at the age of 58 years. On the contrary, it was suggested to all High Courts to make a Rule specifying only the superannuation age without any condition. The Commission also recommended the retirement age of District Judges as 62 and suggested to review for compulsory retirement once in 5 years at the age of 50, 55 and 60 years under the respective Service Rules made for the purpose. Though the Supreme Court did not agree with the recommendations of the Commission to fix the age of retirement as 62, it accepted the recommendation to fix the age as 60. The Supreme Court also made it clear that except insofar as the modifications made by them in their judgment, all other recommendations of the Commission were accepted.

7. Relying on this observation of the Supreme Court, it was contended that the Rules framed in particular Rule 95-A is ultra vires, as it is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court which is the law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, it was contended that the age of retirement is 60 years and the question of extension from 58 years to 60 years would not arise.

8. As is clear from the Second Judges' case the directions issued by the Supreme Court are only mere aids and incidental to and supplemental of the main direction and intended as a transitional measure till a comprehensive national policy is evolved. Admittedly, till today, no national policy is evolved. Similarly, no Rules have been framed by the High Court or the State Government giving effect to the recommendations of the Commission as approved by the Supreme Court in the Third Judges' case. Therefore, the question is, in the absence of a national policy and in the absence of the rules framed in terms of report of the Commission and the Third Judges' case, how petitioners case should have been considered, on their attaining the age of 58 years.

9. In fact, the Supreme Court was faced with such a situation in the case of S.D. Singh v. Jharkhand High Court JT 2005(10) SC 453. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajat Baran Roy v. State of West Bengal and Ors. : [1999]2SCR618 , where the rules enhancing the age of 60 years had been framed, it was held that once Rules have been framed, the directions given by the Court would not apply. Therefore, where necessary Service Rules had been framed extending the age of retirement, the procedure prescribed in Second Judges' case would be inapplicable and the concerned officers would continue in service. However, it was made clear, that, if there were no rules framed, then the Judicial Officers were to continue in service till the age of 60 years in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court in the Second Judges' case, provided the officers, on a scrutiny of their service records in accordance with the directions issued in the Second Judges' case were found suitable for the benefit of extended service. It was also made clear that the directions given in the Second Judges' case has to yield to the new rules and therefore it was no longer incumbent upon the High Court to resort to the procedure on scrutiny of the service records of all Judicial Officers before allowing them the benefit of extension in the age of retirement. It was also held in the said judgment that the decision in the Third Judges' case did hot interfere with or modify the directions given in 1993 in the Second Judges' case, and the same would continue to prevail till the rules are framed in terms of the Third Judges' case, where the recommendations of the Commission was accepted.

10. In fact, in the recommendations of the Commission, the Commission has spelt out how these service conditions have to be regulated till new rules are framed. It is stated as under:

We have indicated that once such a rule is made the said directions of the Supreme Court need not be followed for review of cases of Judicial Officers as observed by the Supreme Court in Rajat Baran Roy and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. : [1999]2SCR618 .

11. Therefore, it is clear that .as on today no national policy is evolved and no rules are framed. Therefore, till the national policy is evolved and rules are framed in conformity with the recommendations of the Commission as approved by the Supreme Court in Third Judges' case, the question of giving effect to the recommendations of the Commission prescribing 60 years as the age of retirement in place of 58 would not arise. It is only when Rules are made in terms of the report of the Commission, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Second Judges' case and the Rules framed in pursuance of the said judgment as contained in Rule 95-A of the Rules would be in operative. Rule 95-A is not deleted as suggested in the report of the Commission. No new rules are framed in terms of the report. The law as on today which governs the age of retirement of District Judges and the procedure prescribed for extending the benefit of increase of retirement age to 60 years, is as contained in Rule 95-A. It is only on assessment and evaluation of the record of the Judicial Officer, his eligibility to continue after he attains the age of 58 years till 60 years is to be granted. The recommendations of the Commission as approved by the Supreme Court in Third Judges' case is not applicable to them as yet and it is the law declared by the Supreme Court in the Second Judges' case which is the binding law as on today.

12. Therefore, the contention that in the light of the Third Judges' case, Rule 95-A has become ultra vires and that these petitioners are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years and the question of evaluating and assessing their performances at the age of 58 years would not arise, has no substance. The case of all these petitioners have been considered in terms of the aforesaid Rules and as they were found ineligible for continuation of their service till 60 years after they attained the age of 58 years, they have been compulsorily retired from service. It is legal and valid and strictly in accordance with law.

13. Except the aforesaid ground, no other grounds are urged challenging the impugned orders. In those circumstances, as the challenge to the impugned orders fails for the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions also fail. Accordingly, these writ petitions are rejected.

14. Sri Huleappa Heroor, learned Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.