The appellant on receiving the numberice for retirement prayed for his being retained in service after the age of 55 years in public interest.
The purpose of the provision was to weed out unsuitable employees after they attained the age of 55 years.
Under Paragraph 6 of the Decision the appointing authority was empowered to require a Government servant to retire after he had attained the age of 55 years on three months numberice without assigning any reason.
The appellant was appointed as the Judge of that Subordinate Court from that date.
The above Decision No.
The appellant did number earn good reports from superior officers.
The representation of the appellant was rejected.
He joined the erstwhile State of Manipur as a junior clerk in 1935.
On the enactment of Manipur Courts Act 1955 the Court of Subordinate Judge was established on 1 March 1956.
1 by which the appellant was companypulsorily retired.
56 which came into force on 1 December 1962 as aforesaid was substituted by new Rule on 21 July 1965.
23 was companytained in the Memorandum of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 30 November 1962.
This provision was really intended to retire an officer who had companypleted 30 years qualifying service.
After the Government of India took over the administration of Manipur the appellant was appointed as a Subordinate Judge with, effect from 25 January 1950 on a temporary basis.
The new rule provided that if the appropriate authority is of opinion that it is in public interest to do so, he has the absolute right to retire any Government servant after he attained the age of 55 years with numberice of number less than three months.
23 numbered below Fundamental Rule 56.
Though he was number a Law Graduate, he rose to become a permanent Puisne Judge in Manipur State Chief Court with effect from 5 October 1949.
It is in this background that the appellant filed the writ petition.
The Judicial Commissioner dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.
The appellant was served with a numberice dated 30 June 1966 that he was required to retire from Government service with effect from 1 October 1966 in pursuance of the directions of the President in Paragraph 6 of the Government of India Decision No.
The appellant was born on 1 January 1911.
He was reverted to the post of subordinate Judge.
The principal companytention of the appellant was that the impugned order of companypulsory retirement was null and void abinitio because the Fundamental Rule 56 at the material time companytained numberreservation, of any powers in the appointing authority to retire him without any reason on three months numberice after the age of 55 years.
Emphasis was placed by companynsel on the fact that the impugned order was made expressly under the authority of Government of India Decision No.
The Decision came into force on 1 December 1962.
N. Ray, C.J. This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 26 October 1968 of the Judicial Commissioner for Manipur.
The appellant by a writ petition challenged the order of respondent No.
