A.R. Lakshmanan JUDGMENT
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.
1. The questions involved in these three appeals are identical and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. By order dated 23.03.1999, the appellants, who are the officers of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service, were retired from service w.e.f. 31.03.1999 on attaining the age of superannuation. The appellants, who received the order, challenged the same before the High Court Rajasthan by filing writ petitions which were disposed of by a Division Bench of the said Court. The two learned Judges who constituted the Division Bench rendered two concurrent judgments. While the conclusion was the same, the reasons were different. While one learned Judge held that the order of 23.03.1999 retiring the appellants was sustainable under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, the other learned Judge held that the order was sustainable under the All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (Review case) reported in 
MANU/SC/0391/1993 : (1993)IILLJ776SC . All the writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court and being aggrieved by the said judgments, the appellants preferred the above appeals in this Court.
3. We have gone through the two concurrent judgments. Though we agree with the conclusion arrived at by them, we would, however, prefer to give our own reasons for construction of the relevant provisions of the rules and the judgments cited before us.
4. We have perused the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee of three Hon'ble Judges headed by the then Chief Justice and other relevant records. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court in All India Judges' Association's case (supra), the matter of several officers (including the three appellants) was placed before the Committee to consider for giving them the benefit of extension up to the age of 60 years.
5. In the Full Court meeting held on 15.01.1999, it was resolved to screen the officers in accordance with the decision of this Court. The Committee, on examination of the service record, character roll, quality of their work, disposal, integrity, general reputation and their potentiality and utility found that the appellants are not fit to be given the benefit of extension. We have perused the report of the Committee. The Committee had extensively gone through the entire record with minutes details and have come to the conclusion that these appellants are not fit to be given the benefit of extension. The Committee has found that Shri Mata Deen Garg, Shri Bhanwar Lal Sharma and Shri Chandra Singh are found not to possess sufficient potentiality and utility so as to give them the benefit of extension of service up to the age of 60 years. One of the appellants Shri Mata Deen Garg appeared in-person and argued his case. The Committee was of the view that the officer was not fit to be given the benefit of extension and that his conduct can be judged from the uncontrovertibly facts emerging from the disciplinary proceedings pending against him also. In these proceedings, he has