ORDER These two writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed by a retired Judicial Officer one Shiva Shankar Sharma. 2. In C.W.J.C. No. 6237 of 2003, the writ petitioner has challenged the decision of the High Court to retire the writ petitioner from service on reaching the age of 58 years. It is the claim of the petitioner that he be given the benefit of extension and be allowed to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. The Petition is contested by the High Court. The High Court has filed counter affidavit to state that before the decision was taken to retire the writ petitioner from service on his attaining the age of 58 years, his entire service record was considered by the Evaluation Committee. The opinion of the Evaluation Committee formed on the basis of the service record, the allegation files, the quality and quantity of judgments etc. was approved by the Full Court. Thus, after two-tier scrutiny, it was decided that the petitioner had lost his utility as a Judicial Officer and extension in service beyond the age of 58 years would not fructify. 3. At the outset, we may note that in view of the passage of time, the Petition has become infructuous insofar as the petitioner cannot now be inducted in service. Petitioner has now attained nearly 68 years of age, question of his restoration in service would not arise. In any view of the matter, the decision of the High Court does not call for interference more particularly in view of the judgment of this Court in the matter of Satya Narayan Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, { 2003(3) PLJR 837 }. 4. C.W.J.C. No. 4009 of 2009 has been filed by the writ petitioner to challenge the decision of the High Court in not allowing the petitioner selection grade which had became due to him in 1999 on the sole ground that he was ordered to be retired from service on reaching the age of 58 years and was not allowed to continue till the age of 60 years. The Petition is contested by the High Court. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed to demonstrate that grant of selection grade is not a matter of course. Several matters are considered while allowing the selection grade to a Judicial Officer. The Petition is contested by the High Court. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed to demonstrate that grant of selection grade is not a matter of course. Several matters are considered while allowing the selection grade to a Judicial Officer. Similarly, the petitioner’s case had been considered by the Evaluation Committee and the Standing Committee. The entire service record, the report of the Evaluation Committee and other relevant factors were considered by the High Court. The allegation that the decision was taken on a sole factor that the petitioner was not allowed to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years is not true. 5. Pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of All India Judges’ Association and in compliance with the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Government of Bihar passed a Resolution on 12th March 2003 to revise the pay-scales of the Judges in the State Judiciary at all levels and to provide for selection grade and super-time scale in the cadre of District Judges. In furtherance thereof, a further Resolution came to be passed on 17th March 2005. Under the said Resolution, the State Government set out extent to which the selection grade and super-time scale would be available to the Judges in cadre of District Judge and the criteria on which the said higher pay-scales would be granted. The said Resolution specifically provides that the grant of selection grade or super-time scale is not a matter of course but would be allowed on recommendation by the High Court on evaluation of the officers on the principle of merit-cum-seniority. 6. In support of the counter affidavit, the High Court has produced relevant records. It appears that the then Chief Justice had constituted a Committee of himself and seven other Judges of this High Court to consider the cases of several Civil Court Judges for extension of their service beyond 58 years of age. After considering the relevant factors recorded hereinabove in respect of five Civil Court Judges including the writ petitioner, the Committee opined, “… … … their further continuance in service will not be in the public interest as they do not have the potential for continued useful service.” The aforesaid opinion of the Evaluation Committee was approved by the Full Court in its meeting dated 25th January 2003. 7. Learned counsel Mr. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Basant Kumar Chaudhary has appeared for the petitioner. He has vehemently submitted that the petitioner was promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge in 1991. He became due for selection grade in 1999. Any material prior to 1991 was, therefore, of no consequence so far as grant of selection grade was concerned. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Piyush Lall has appeared for the High Court. Mr. Piyush Lall has contested this Petition on the ground of nonjoinder of necessary parties. He has relied upon the order dated 31st July 2009 made on this Petition, where the Bench had categorically noted the factum of nonjoinder of necessary parties. Nevertheless, till date the petitioner has not impleaded the officers who shall be adversely affected in case the Petition were allowed. The Petition thus suffers from nonjoinder of necessary parties. Mr. Piyush Lall has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Syed T.A.Naqshbandi and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, { (2003) 9 SCC 592 ) and of Rajendra Singh Verma (dead) through Lrs. and Others Vs. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) and Others, { (2011) 10 SCC 1 }. 9. The very issue of grant of selection grade and super-time scale in respect of a Judge in Higher Judicial Service came-up for consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred matter of Syed T.A.Naqshbandi and Others. The Hon’ble Court recorded its satisfaction in respect of the process adopted by the High Court and the decision of the Evaluation Committee and the Full Court. The Hon’ble Court recorded that the opinion of the High Court was, “… … … neither so arbitrary or capricious nor can be said to be so irrational as to shock the conscience of the Court to warrant or justify any interference. In cases of such assessment, evaluation and formulation of opinions, a vast range of multiple factors play a vital and important role and no one factor should be allowed to be overblown out of proportion either to decry or deify an issue to be resolved or claims sought to be considered or asserted. In cases of such assessment, evaluation and formulation of opinions, a vast range of multiple factors play a vital and important role and no one factor should be allowed to be overblown out of proportion either to decry or deify an issue to be resolved or claims sought to be considered or asserted. In the very nature of things it would be difficult, nearing almost an impossibility to subject such exercise undertaken by the Full Court, to judicial review except in an extraordinary case when the court is convinced that some monstrous thing which ought not to have taken place has really happened and not merely because there could be another possible view or someone has some grievance about the exercise undertaken by the Committee or Full Court. … … …”. 10. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajendra Singh Verma (supra). 11. A Bench of this Court also, as early as in the matter of Satya Narayan Singh (supra), expressed a similar view in a similar case of extension of service of a Judge beyond 58 years of age. The Bench held, “the overall performance during the entire service career has to be seen, communicated or uncommunicated entries can be taken into consideration, small lapses, big mistakes or blunders all are to be judged in their true perspective--lapses committed, the mistakes made and the blunders suffered by the officer with his work and working have to be put in one pan of the balance while his working, his disposal quantitatively and qualitatively and his future utility are to be put in the other pan of the balance.” 12. It is well settled and is reiterated in the above referred judgments that the matter of premature retirement or of extension of the age of retirement depends upon various factors and the entire service record. The contention that the service record prior to the date of promotion is of no consequence has been repeatedly rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court. 13. In view of the materials placed before us, the decision of the High Court and the above referred judgments, we see no merit in these Petitions. Petitions are dismissed.