1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner posted as Sub-Judge, Muzaffarpur, being aggrieved by the order, dated 8th May, 2001, sent by the then Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Patna, informing the petitioner that in view of the decision of the High Court he ceased to be member of Judicial Services of the State on completion of age of 58 years, has now come to this Court, inter alia, submitting that non-grant of extension is bad, the petitioner who was earlier held to be utile in law by proving his utility and as from the counter it would clearly appear that for the period between 1990-1991 up to the date of his superannuation he always earned a good and satisfactory remarks, the extension could not be refused. It is contended by the petitioner that the non-communicated entries of the service career have been taken into consideration to reject his claim and even otherwise there no material was available against the interest of the petitioner to give a weapon in the hands of the Evaluation Committee of the High Court to cut short his service career. Placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the matter of Shyam Deo Singh v. The State of