As per case facts, appellants, who were Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service officers, were retired at 58 years. They challenged this in the High Court, but their petitions were dismissed. A ... committee had assessed their records and found them unfit for extension to 60 years, citing integrity, potential, and pending inquiries.The question arose whether these officers had a vested right to continue service until 60 years under previous Supreme Court judgments and rules, and if the pre-retirement assessment and orders were valid given the timing of rule changes.Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. While noting potential legal infirmities in the High Court's retirement orders (rules not in force, unfulfilled procedures), the Court declined discretionary relief. It emphasized that judicial service cannot tolerate officers of doubtful integrity or diminished utility, and their retirement was not a penal consequence.