Full Court decisions cannot be subjected to judicial review:HC

The Madras High Court on Wednesday made clear that a judicial review of a Full Court decision was legally impermissible, dismissing a petition by a retired

sessions judge who said he was being relieved at the age of 58 and his service was not being extended.

A bench of justices R Subbaiah and C Saravanan said the extension of service beyond the retirement age of 58 was a benefit conferred on the judicial officer subject to assessment of his or her potential by the high court.

Hence, the petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot be permitted to seek interference of such a discretionary decision by this court, especially when there was no procedural violation in such decision making process, it said.

 

S Natarajan, who retired as a sessions judge, had filed the petition to quash the Full Court proceedings reliving him from the judicial service and consequently seeking to retain him till he attained the age of 60.

The petitioner submitted that while serving as a sessions judge in Tiruvannamalai, the Registrar General of the Madras High Court by proceedings of the Administrative Committee on May 17, 2018, allowed him to continue his service beyond 58 years and up to 60, subject to the approval of the Full Court.

However, he was relieved from judicial service by a December 10, 2018 communication based on the Full Court decision not to extend his service.

The bench rejected the arguments of counsel for the petitioner that the Administrative Committee of the HC had taken a decision to permit his client to continue service until he attained the age of 60 and the matter was placed before the Full Court only for approval.

It pointed out that the registrar general's order had clearly stated that the petitioner's services were being extended till 60 years subject to the approval of the Full Court.

This meant that the petitioner may or may not be permitted to continue in service beyond the age of 58 and it would be subjected to the decision of the Full Court.

In its proceedings,the Full Court unanimously resolved that the services of the petitioner need not be continued beyond the age of 58 years and therefore he was relieved from service.