IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8660 of 2008 Between: Mr. V. Murali Mohan S/o. V. Joga RAo R/o. H.No.7/89, Prashanth Nagar, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam-530027. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chief General Manager. 2 The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Region I, Zonal Office, Balajinagar, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the proceedings No.(3-1)(HR)F.P&C1/2008 dated 10.04.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same with further direction to continue the petitioner till he attains the age of 58 years i.e., upto 04.05.2010. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of the State Bank of India, on 15.03.1971, as Clerk. Subsequently, he was promoted in the Junior Management Group. According to the service regulations of the Bank, the desirability of an employee to be continued in service is taken up whenever he crosses the ages of 55 and 58, or 30 years of service. The respondents addressed a letter, dated 10.04.2008, expressing their inability to continue the services of the petitioner beyond 58 years, and accordingly, informed him that he would retire on 02.05.2008, from service. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondents in proposing to retire him on 02.05.2008, on the ground that even if the respondents do not intend to continue him beyond 58 years, he is entitled to remain in service up to 05.05.2010, since his date of birth is 05.05.1952. Several grounds ancillary to this proposition are advanced. The respondents filed counter-affidavit stating, inter alia, that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner has already availed the remedy of appeal. It is also stated that not only in the service records, but also in the passport held by the petitioner, the date of birth is mentioned as 03.05.1950, and he was, accordingly, retired from service, with effect from 02.05.2008, on attaining the age of 58 years. Heard Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The respondents have exercised their option not to continue the petitioner in service beyond 58 years. The petitioner, in turn, availed the remedy of appeal, against the order, dated 10.04.2008. Further, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed patent illegality, or that the impugned order suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record. Prima facie, the respondents have placed before this Court the material to show that the petitioner himself indicated his date of birth, as 03.05.1950. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. It is accordingly dismissed. It is left open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy of appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J. Dated:23.06.2008 GJ