Suitability-based continuation of judicial officers to age 60 depends on valid assessment under applicable service rules.

Judicial officers' retirement before age 60 was examined against service rules fixing superannuation at 58 years, with continuation to 60 dependent on suitability assessment. The Court noted that the High Court could assess fitness before officers crossed 58 years, and that the committee's evaluation approved by the Full Court was not unauthorized merely because an amended rule was to operate later. The compulsory retirement rule for public interest was also found inapplicable on the stated facts because its requirements were not established. Constitutional jurisdiction was nevertheless declined in view of the service records and the nature of judicial service.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders retiring the judicial officers before completion of 60 years were valid and whether the appellants were entitled to restoration to service.

Analysis: The applicable service rules and the constitutional directions concerning subordinate judicial officers were examined together. Where the statutory rules governing the field fixed the age of superannuation at 58 years with an exception for officers found fit for continuation up to 60 years, the High Court was competent to assess suitability before the officers crossed 58 years. The Court held that the assessment undertaken by the Committee and approved by the Full Court was not without authority merely because the amended rule was to come into force on a later date, and the impugned retirement orders could not be justified under the compulsory retirement rule for public interest, as its requirements were not shown to have been satisfied. At the same time, the Court found that its constitutional jurisdiction did not require interference in the facts of the case, having regard to the officers' service records and the nature of judicial service.

Conclusion: The legality of the retirement action was not interfered with in exercise of the Court's discretionary jurisdiction, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where judicial officers are governed by service rules fixing superannuation at 58 years subject to suitability-based extension, their continuation to 60 years depends on assessment under the applicable rule and the Court may decline relief in special leave jurisdiction even if some legal infirmity is shown.

---