Review Committee in the present case which provides that whether a member of the Judicial Service should be retired in public interest under sub-Rule (1) shall be considered at least three times, that is, when he is about to attain the age of 50 years, 55 years and 58 years. He submitted that though the case for review was considered before the amendment, the impugned order makes a reference to the exercise of powers under Rule 19 of the said Rules as amended by the Notification dated 6th August,2011. He submits that when the impugned order of compulsory retirement was actually passed, the amended Rule 19 was on the Rule Book. He submitted that in view of the amended Rule, the case of the petitioner could have been considered only when he was about to attain the age of 50 years and not long after he attained the age of 50 years. He pointed out that when the case of the Petitioner was actually considered, the age of the petitioner was 50 years 10 months 9 days. He urged that if a case for compulsory retirement is considered in terms of sub-Rule (1) even after a judicial officer attains the age of 50 years, 55 years or 58 years, as the case may be, sub-Rule (2) of Rule 19 as amended will become redundant. He invited out attention to the proviso to sub-Rule (2). He submitted that under the proviso, the case of a Judicial Officer for compulsory retirement can be considered any time after attaining the age of 50 years, 55 years or 58 years, as the case may be, provided his case is considered before attaining the age of 50 years, 55 years or 58 years. His submission is that the case of the petitioner could not have been considered either under sub-Rule (2) or under the proviso under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 19 of
