AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J. Chelameswar, C.J.
1.This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 30427 of 2010 aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. No. 13953 of 2010 in the said writ petition.
The appellant is working as a District Judge and is a member of the Kerala Higher Judicial Services. The 2nd respondent, i.e. this Court, in exercise of its obligation arising under the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Rules 1961 and under the decision of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India(W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989) opined that on a review of the performance and all other relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration assessed the continued utility of the appellant and issued Ext.P2 notice stating that the continuance of the appellant herein is not called for.
Challenging the said decision of the 2nd respondent, i.e. Ext.P2, the appellant herein preferred the abovementioned writ petition and also sought an interim order staying the operation of Ext.P2 and permit the appellant to continue in service till the age of 60 years. By the order under appeal the interim order was rejected. Hence this appeal.
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri.S.Ramesh Babu. The learned Counsel attempted to make a submission on the existence of the prima facie case in favour of the appellant. We do not propose to examine the correctness ofe submission, as any observation in this regard is likely to have a bearing on the merits of the writ petition which is still pending.Coming to the second submission of the appellant that balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant and therefore the interim order as the one sought by the appellant ought to have been granted, we do not see any reason to accept the submission.
The appellant if succeeds in the writ petition eventually would be entitled to all the benefits of the office despite the fact that he does not discharge his functions as a Judicial Officer during the pendency of the writ petition. On the other hand, if the appellant fails in his challenge, the interim order, as the one sought by him if granted, would enable the appellant to discharge both the Judicial and Administrative functions with far reaching consequences which may result in complications. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that balance of convenience is not in favour of the appellant. Hence the learned Single Judge has rightly declined the interim order.
We do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The Writ Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.