Case: State Of Haryana Vs. Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. &amp; Others

This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 18 November, 1971 of the Punjab and Haryana Highrespondent joined the Punjab Civil Service, (Executive Branch) in November, 1954. He was selected for the Judicial Branch of the Punjab Civil Service on or about 1 May, 1965. On 15 November, 1968 he was promoted a s officiating Additional District and Sessions Judge.The respondent was due to attain the age of 55 years on 24 February, 1971. His case was referred to the High Court for their recommendation whether the respondent should retire at the age of 55 years or he should be retained in service till the age of 58 years which is the prescribed age of superannuation under the Punjab Civil ServiceHigh Court was of opinion that the work of the respondent as Additional District an d Sessions Judge was not satisfactory. The High Court was not inclined to recommend the respondents continuance in Superior Judicial Service up to the age of 58 years. The High Court recommended that the respondent should be reverted to his substantive post of Senior Subordinate Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate and that he might be allowed to continue in service till the age of 58State Government agreed with the recommendation for reverting the respondent from the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge to the Senior Subordinate Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate. With regard to the retention of the respondent in service up to the age of 58 years the State again asked the High Court to consider whether in view of the respondents work as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hissar, having been found to be unsatisfactory, the respondent should be retained at all in service beyond the age of 55 years. The State Government suggested t hat it was in public interest to retire the respondent at the age of 55 years. The High Court did not agree with the suggestion. By letter dated 16 August, 1971 the High Court reiterated that the respondent might continue in service up to the age of 58 years. The State Government did not agree with the recommendation of the High Court and decided to retire the respondent under Rule 5.32 (c) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules. A notice was issued to the respondent on 20 August, 1971 giving him notice of three months on the expiry of which he would retire from service.The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court impeaching the notice dated 20 August 1971. The matter was heard by a Bench of three learned Judges. The order retiring the respondent from service was quashed by the majority opinion.

Court's reasoning:
The High Court is acquainted with the capacity of work of the members of the Service. In the Punjab &Haryana case (supra) this Court pointed out that if after the appointment of District Judge t ill he is confirmed the State is allowed to control the District Judge there will be dual control. This is not the meaning of "control" in our Constitution.The control vested in the High Court is that if the High Court is of opinion that a pa rticular Judicial Officer is not fit to be retained in service the High Court will communicate that to the Governor because the Governor is the authority to dismiss, remove, reduce in rank or terminate the appointment. In such cases it is the con templation in the Constitution that the Governor as the head of the State will act in harmony with the recommendation of the High Court. If the recommendation of the High Court is not held to be binding on the State consequences will be unfortunate . It is in public interest that the State will accept the recommendation of the High Court. The vesting of complete control over the Subordinate Judiciary in the High Court leads to this that the decision of the High Court in matters within its jurisdiction will bind the State. "The Government will act on the recommendation of the High Court. That is the broad basis of Article 235". See Shamsher Singhs case (supra) at pagethe present case, the order of the State retiring t he respondent from service after the expiry of three months from the date of the order 20 August, 1971 has been rightly quashed by the High Court. The High Court did not make any recommendation to that effect.