1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.197 of 2008 in W.P.No.1608 of 2006 (D) (Shriram s/o. Sonsa Hirurkar .vs. The Registrar General, HIgh Court of Bombay and anr.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : JULY 29, 2008. Heard Mr.C.V.Kale, Adv. for Applicant. Considered the contentions canvassed by learned counsel. Perused the order. Perusal of the impugned order shows that merely because the Registrar General of this Court called option from the review petitioner vide communication dt.20.10.2004 as to whether he would like to continue in service till the age of 60 years, it does not create any right in the review petitioner to get extension upto the age of 60 years in service. Extension in judicial service beyond the period of 2 58 years depends upon the report of Evaluation Committee which evaluates the judgments, confidential reports etc. of the Judicial Officers and if such Committee comes to the conclusion that continuation of such Judicial Officer is in the interest of Society, in that event alone, such continuation is permitted. Consequently, no case is made out for interference. Hence, the review petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE ssj