ORDER :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. The writ petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation as a Superintendent, Junior Civil Judge's Court, Penukonda, Ananthapuram District. Subsequently, through a notification in Dis. No. 12/2017/DLSA, dated 03.01.2017 issued by respondent No. 3, applications were invited from the retired judicial employees for appointment to the post of Head Clerk, Typist-cum-Assistant and Steno-cum-Typist to work in the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ananthapuram and pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner had submitted his application for the post of Head Clerk. By order, dated 31.03.2017, the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Ananthapuram, had appointed the petitioner as a Head Clerk. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner were extended for a period of two years vide order dated 02.04.2018 and again, extended till attaining the age of 65 years i.e., 05.07.2021.

3. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner contends that the action of the respondents in not extending the contract appointment of the petitioner upto the age of 69 years is arbitrary, and accordingly, he prays for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider his representation dated 12.02.2021 and to continue his contract appointment until he completes the age of 69 years.

4. Mr. N. Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the notification dated 03.01.2017 prescribes that any person, who has completed the age of 18 years and has not completed the age of 65 years, was eligible to apply and that the period of contract/service will be one year to start with and the said contract may be extended for further period, if necessary. He submits that in similar circumstances, the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, in W.P. No. 16605 of 2016 (P. Subrahmanyam Pillai v. The Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Chittoor) had directed the respondents therein to continue the petitioner therein as Head Clerk irrespective of the fact that he has completed the age of 65 years. It is also submitted that in another case i.e., in W.P. No. 5458 of 2018 (S. Sai Krishna Murthy, Head Clerk, Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ongole, Prakasam District), erstwhile High Court of Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by order dated 20.02.2018, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to continue the petitioner therein to work in Permanent Lok Adalat, Ongole, till he attains the age of 69 years or till notification extending the age limit is issued, whichever is earlier, subject to satisfaction of performance of his duties. As the petitioner is a similarly placed person like the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 16605 of 2016 and 5458 of 2018, direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the above judgments, he contends.

5. Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1, submits that the present case is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of P. Subrahmanyam Pillai (supra) as in that case, the petitioner was working as Head clerk in Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Chittoor, and in the instant case, the petitioner had been appointed as Head Clerk in the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ananthapuram.

6. Mr. S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, by filing a memo, had placed before the Court the proceedings dated 03.07.2021 issued by the Chairman-cum-Principal District Judge, District Legal Services Authority, Anantapuramu.

7. At