THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P. No. 32339 of 2011 [(SR) No. 164924 OF 2011] DATED:05-12-2011 Between: T. Kumar Babu … Petitioner And Union of India and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P. No. 32339 of 2011 [(SR) No. 164924 OF 2011] JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. After considering the merits of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the office objection. 2. The writ petition be registered despite the oﬃce objection. 3. The case of the petitioner who is a practicing Advocate is that respondents 4 to 10 could not be appointed as Additional Judges of the High Court since their appointment is in violation of Section 3(1A) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 4. For convenience, Section 3(1A) is reproduced below: “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), every member of the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service or the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years. Provided that any such member of the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service or the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service may be compulsorily retired from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of ﬁfty eight years if he is not found ﬁt and eligible to be continued in service by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on an assessment and evaluation of the record of such member for his continued utility well within time before he attains the age of ﬁfty eight years by following the procedure for compulsory retirement under the rules applicable to him; Provided further that any such member of the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service or the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial service at his option to be exercised in writing before he attains the age of ﬁfty seven years may retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty eight years. Explanation: The assessment and evaluation by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for the purposes of this sub-section is in addition to and independent of the assessment for compulsory retirement that may have to be undertaken at any other time under the relevant rules applicable to such members of the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service or the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service.” 5. It is quite clear that the petitioner has not understood the scope and content of Article 217 of the Constitution of India and has completely misunderstood the provisions of the Act aforementioned. A plain reading of the Act shows that a judicial oﬃcer’s services can be extended upto the age of sixty years by a resolution passed by the High Court. This has nothing to do with the appointment of a Judge under Article 217 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon S.K. Rathi vs. Prem Hari Sharma and Others[1]. We have gone through the case and it pertains to the continuation of respondent No.1 therein as an acting Principal of a college in pursuance of an order passed by the High Court. We do not ﬁnd any applicability of the decision to the facts of the present case. 7. Under the circumstances, we dismiss the writ petition with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to be paid by the petitioner to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad. 8. We make it clear to the Registry of this Court and direct that no petition ﬁled by the petitioner will be entertained until and unless there is proof of payment of Rs.25,000/- by way of costs, as ordered. 9. The interim application is also dismissed. MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 05-12-2011 pnb [1] (2001) 9 SCC 377