ition No 4659 of 1979 Under Article 32 of the Constitution G section Mann for the Petitioner
Har Dev Singh for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK J
The petitioner applies for relief under Article 32 of the Constitution against the orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana withdrawing judicial work assigned to him and thereafter prematurely retiring him from service
The petitioner after holding a number of minor posts in the Punjab Government was appointed to the Punjab Civil Service Executive Branch and subsequently in April 1965 migrated to the Punjab Civil Service Judicial Branch
He remained a Judicial officer thereafter
The petitioner claims that he was entitled to promotion to a Selection Grade post in the Punjab Civil Service Judicial Branch and subsequently to a post in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service
The claim was based in both cases on the footing that a post had been reserved in the two services for a member of the Scheduled Castes
It was also asserted that the petitioner was entitled to the posts even 509 without reference to such reservation
The petitioner s case is that his service record was uniformly good but as the High Court was actuated by mala fides it refused him promotion
He cites some instances to support the allegation of mala fides including the circumstance that having been appointed to the post of Senior Subordinate Judge he was reverted as Subordinate Judge
On 4th November 1978 the High Court ordered withdrawal of all judicial work from the petitioner and on 8th November 1978 a Judicial officer was posted in his place
The petitioner then filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the orders dated 4th November 1978 and 8th November 1978 for his reappointment as Senior Subordinate Judge and thereafter his promotion to the Selection Grade post of the Punjab Civil Service Judicial Branch with effect from 1st November 1966 and his promotion to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service with effect from 1st November 1967
He also claimed an injunction against his premature retirement from service
This Court entertained the writ petition but declined to grant interim relief
On 29th December
1978 the Punjab Government accepting the recommendation of the High Court sanctioned the premature retirement of the petitioner from the Punjab Civil Service Judicial Branch with effect from 30th December 1978 on which date the petitioner completed twenty five years qualifying service for the purposes of the Punjab Civil Service Premature Retirement Rules 1965
In regard to the petitioner s claim for promotion to the Selection Grade post in the Punjab Civil Service Judicial Branch with effect from 1st November 1966 and to a post in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service with effect from 1st May 1967 on the basis that a post had been reserved in each of the services for a member of the Scheduled Castes it seems to us that the claim is grossly belated
The writ petition was filed in this Court in 1978 about eleven years after the dates from which the promotions are claimed
There is no valid explanation for the delay
That the petitioner was making successive representations during this period can hardly justify our overlooking the inordinate delay
Relief must be refused on that ground
It is not necessary in the circumstances to consider the further submission of the respondents that the provision on which the petitioner relies as the basis of his claim is concerned with the appointment only of members of the Scheduled Castes to posts in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service and not to recruitment by promotion to that service
The petitioner has also claimed that even without the advantage of reservation he is entitled to promotion to a Selection Grade post in the Punjab Civil Service Judicial Branch and to a post in the Punjab 510 Superior Judicial Service and that the High Court should have promoted him accordingly
The position taken in reply by the High Court is that the character and quality of the petitioner s work and conduct as evidenced by confidential reports pertaining to him did not justify his promotion having regard to the guidelines laid down by the High Court
We have personally examined the records in respect of the petitioner and we are unable to say that the view taken by the High Court is unreasonable or arbitrary
We may now examine the contention of the petitioner that the order of premature retirement is invalid
He has assailed the application of the Punjab Civil Service Premature Retirement Rules 1975
He urges that as a Judicial officer in the Punjab Civil Service Judicial Branch he is not governed by these rules
It is true that originally rule 7 of those Rules provided that they would not apply to persons belonging to any judicial service of the State
But by notification dated 18th August 1975    in exercise of the powers under Article 234 of the Constitution besides other provisions Rule 7 was substituted by another rule which did not exempt members of the judicial service from the operation of the Premature Retirement Rules
The Premature Retirement Rules were finalised after consultation with the High Court and therefore must be regarded as complying with Article 234 of the Constitution
There is nothing in the Punjab Civil Service Judicial Branch Rules which excludes the operation of the Retirement Rules
We are therefore not satisfied that the Premature Retirement Rules cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner
It is urged by the petitioner that the High Court when it applied the Premature Retirement Rules did not consider the case of the petitioner on its facts
We have however the affidavit of the Registrar of the High Court which states that the case of the petitioner was considered by the High Court on 26th October 1978 and having regard to the policy laid down by the High Court it was decided to recommend to the Government that the petitioner should be retired from service in the public interest with effect from 30th December 1978 the date on which he completed twenty five years of qualifying service
At the same time it was decided as a matter of policy by the High Court that all the work pending in the court of a Judicial officer in respect of whom a recommendation for premature retirement had been made to the Government should be withdrawn immediately pending a decision by the Government on such recommendation
It was in implementation of that policy that the order directing withdrawal of judicial work from the petitioner was made
511 It is next contended by the petitioner that the expression public interest in the Premature Retirement Rules is vague and the rule is for that reason ultra vires
In our opinion the expression in the context of premature retirement has a well settled meaning
It refers to cases where the interests of public administration require the retirement of a government servant who with the passage of years has prematurely ceased to possess the standard of efficiency competence and utility called for by the government service to which he belongs
No stigma or implication of misbehaviour is intended and punishment is not the objective
It appears to us to be beyond dispute that the decision of the High Court to recommend the premature retirement of the petitioner in the light of his record of service must be regarded as falling within the scope of the expression public interest
The petitioner also asserted that Judicial officers whose record of service was inferior or equivalent to that of the petitioner have not been prematurely retired and have been retained in service
The High Court however has stated that no such Subordinate Judge has been retained in service
We see no reason why the High Court should not be believed
Another point raised by the petitioner is that Article 311 of the Constitution has been violated by the Premature Retirement Rules
We think that the concept of premature retirement which has found expression in the Rules does not fall within the scope of Article 311
As we have observed no element of punishment is involved in premature retirement and it is not possible to say that Article 311 is attracted
The petitioner has justified the filing of this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution on the plea that his fundamental rights under Articles 14 16 17 and 46 are violated
We find no substance at all in that plea
The petitioner alleges mala fides on the part of the High Court
It is a reckless allegation and impossible to countenance
There is nothing whatever to indicate that the High Court as a body was motivated by mala fides against the petitioner
The instances alleged by the petitioner in support of his allegation of mala fides fail to prove his case
The High Court has offered a perfectly valid explanation in respect of each instance
The petitioner points out that the High Court has refused to permit encashment of unutilised earned leave
On 512 the material before us we are not satisfied that a case of mala fides has been made out
These are the only points raised by the petitioner which deserve consideration
There is no force in them
The petition fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances there is no order as to costs
VDK Petition dismissed


Summary:
The petitioner after holding a number of minor posts in the Punjab Government was appointed to the Punjab Civil Service Executive Branch and subsequently in April 1965 to the Punjab Civil Service Judicial Branch
From the post of Senior Subordinate Judge he was reverted as Subordinate Judge
Later on 4th November 1978 the High Court ordered withdrawal of all judicial work from the petitioner and on 8th November 1978 a Judicial officer was posted in his place
Subsequently he was prematurely retired with effect from 30th December 1978 on which date he completed 25 years qualifying service for the purposes of Punjab Civil Service Premature Retirement Rules 1975
The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court for the quashing of the orders dated 4th November 1978 and 8th November 1978 for his reappointment as Senior Subordinate Judge and thereafter his promotion to the Selection Grade post of the Punjab Civil Service Judicial Branch with effect from 1st November 1966 and his promotion to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service with effect from 1st November 1967
He also claimed an injunction against his premature retirement from service which relief was refused
Dismissing the petition the Court  HELD 1 Inordinate delay without valid explanation therefor to the claim for promotion itself is a valid ground for refusal of relief to a petitioner
Successive representations made by the petitioner during the period can hardly justify the delay
509F 2 The High Court was justified as borne out by the records not promoting the petitioner to a post in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service
The view of the High Court was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary
510A B 3 The Punjab Civil Service Premature Retirement Rules 1975 are applicable to judicial officers as well
These rules were finalised after consultation with the High Court and therefore must be regarded as complying with Article 234 of the Constitution
Further there is nothing in the Punjab Civil Service Judicial Branch which excludes the operation of the Retirement Rules
510 E 508 4 As a policy decision was taken by the High Court that all the work pending in the court of the Judicial officers in respect of whom a recommendation for premature retirement had been made to the Governor should be withdrawn immediately pending a decision by the Government on such recommendation it cannot be said that the withdrawal of judicial powers in the case of the petitioner was wrong
Even his premature retirement had been properly recommended as a policy matter under the Premature Retirement Rules
510G H 5 The expression public interest in the context of premature retirement has a well settled meaning
It refers to cases where the interest of public administration requires the retirement of a Government servant who with the passage of years has prematurely ceased to possess the standard of efficiency competence and utility called for by the Government service to which he belongs
No stigma or implication of misbehavior is intended and punishment is not the objective
511A B 6 There is no discrimination or violation of Articles 14 16 17 and 46 of the Constitution in view of the fact as borne out by the records that no other judicial officer whose record of service was inferior or equivalent to that of the petitioner had not been prematurely retired
511 F D 7 The concept of premature retirement which has found expression in the Punjab Civil Service Premature Retirement Rules 1975 does not fall within the scope of Article 311
No element of punishment is involved in premature retirement and Article 311 therefore is not attracted
511 E