ORDER Ms. PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J. The petitioner was functioning as a principal District Munsif, Poonamallee when she was served with the impugned order of compulsory retirement. She was relieved from service on 10.10.2006. According to her, she has served to the best of her ability and there is nothing wrong with her disposal of cases or with regard to her integrity, that warrants the order of compulsory retirement. According to the petitioner, the remarks made in the Annual Confidential Report for the period from 1.1.2001 to 23.7.2001 and again from 21.1.2002 and 9.12.2002, cannot be the basis for the order of compulsory retirement, since she was neither given notice nor allowed to make any representation on the allegations or information received. The order dated 9.10.2006 in Notification No. 194 of 2006 gives her a right to file a review petition within one month from the date of receipt of the order from the Government. Therefore, she made a representation for reviewing the order with the Government on -.10.2006. Till date, no orders have been passed and therefore, this writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the review petition filed by her. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out to any legal provision which enables her to file a review petition. The learned counsel submits that except the last sentence in the impugned notification, which permits the petitioner to file a review petition, if she so desires, there is no provision of law under which the review petition can be filed. 3. The High Court alone has the control over the judicial officers in view of Article 235 of Constitution of India. This has been so held in various decisions. “The Governor cannot take any action against any member of a subordinate judicial service without, and contrary to, the recommendation of the High Court” vide Registrar, High Court of Madras v. R. Rajaiah Registrar, High Court of Madras v. R. Rajaiah Registrar, High Court of Madras v. R. Rajaiah AIR 1988 SC 1388 : (1988) 3 SCC 211 . “The Governor cannot take any action against any member of a subordinate judicial service without, and contrary to, the recommendation of the High Court” vide Registrar, High Court of Madras v. R. Rajaiah Registrar, High Court of Madras v. R. Rajaiah Registrar, High Court of Madras v. R. Rajaiah AIR 1988 SC 1388 : (1988) 3 SCC 211 . The power of deciding whether a judicial officer should be retained in service vests in the High Court and to hold otherwise will seriously affect the independence of the judiciary and take away the control vested in the High Court Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. L.V.A. Dixitulu and Others Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. L.V.A. Dixitulu and Others Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. L.V.A. Dixitulu and Others AIR 1979 SC 193 : (1979) 2 SCC 34 . “The control vested in the High Court is that if the High Court is of opinion that a particular judicial Officer is not fit to be retained in service, the High Court will communicate that to the Governor because the Governor is the authority to dismiss, remove, reduce in rank or terminate the appointment. In such cases, it is the contemplation in the Constitution that the Governor, as the head of the State will act in harmony with the recommendation of the High Court. If the recommendation of the High Court is not held to be binding on the State consequences will be unfortunate.” State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. and Others State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. and Others State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. and Others AIR 1976 SC 1841 : (1976) 2 SCC 977 . 4. The Government has no power to review this matter. The said sentence found in the impugned notification also does not have constitutional approval. In these circumstances, the mandamus sought for cannot be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. If the petitioner has a remedy before any other forum, this dismissal will not stand in her way. Writ petition dismissed.