R.M. Doshit, CJ.:–This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by a Judicial Officer one Surya Narayan Mandal to challenge the action of the State Government in retiring him from service on attaining the age of 58 years and not allowing the petitioner to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years. 2. Learned advocate Mr. S.K. Ghosh has appeared for the petitioner. At the outset he has submitted that pending this petition, the petitioner has passed away on 20th March 2012. He has further submitted that the son of the petitioner one Rakesh Kumar has approached for substituting himself in place of the deceased petitioner and to pursue the matter before this Court. 3. We may note here that although the petitioner has passed away on 20th March 2012, the above referred Rakesh Kumar has not come forward to pursue the petition till the date. We have heard the learned advocates on merits. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Ghosh has submitted that continuation in service till the attainment of the age of 60 years was a matter of course and the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner at the age of 58 years is illegal and not sustainable. Mr. Ghosh has submitted that in his entire career as a Judicial Officer of more than 30 years, the petitioner had not been given adverse entry; nor was his service found to be unsatisfactory. There was no reason for the respondent to retire the petitioner prematurely on attaining the age of 58 years. 5. The petition is contested by the High Court. Learned Advocate Mr. Mrigank Mauli has appeared for the High Court. He has relied upon the counter affidavit. He has submitted that at the relevant time under the statutory rules the age of retirement of a Judicial Officer was 58 years. The petitioner’s claim that continuation in service till the attainment of age of 60 years is misconceived. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of All India Judges’ Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors { AIR 1993 SC 2493 }. He has submitted that in view of the direction issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Judicial Officers were considered for extension of their service till the age of 60 years. 6. Vs. Union of India & Ors { AIR 1993 SC 2493 }. He has submitted that in view of the direction issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Judicial Officers were considered for extension of their service till the age of 60 years. 6. Petitioner’s case for extension of service was considered with other 13 officers. The Evaluation Committee of eight Judges headed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice considered the service records, allegation files and other relevant materials of all the officers and opined that 8 officers were fit for extension of service till the age of 60 years. In respect of the petitioner, the Evaluation Committee opined that the petitioner be retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years. The said decision was approved by the Full Court. He has submitted that the Court had, after consideration of the relevant materials decided to retire the petitioner on reaching the age of 58 years. He has further submitted that the retirement at the age of 58 years is neither a punishment nor a stigma. This Court, therefore, would not sit in appeal over the decision of the Evaluation Committee and the Full Court to set it aside. 7. We see no merit in this Petition. This Court exercising the power of judicial review does not sit in appeal over the decision of the High Court. A mere absence of adverse entry may not be the criteria for extension of service beyond the age of 58 years. It is apparent that a uniform test adopted by the High Court has been applied to all the cases before the High Court. There is no reason why the Court should interfere with the decision of the High Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the Petition is dismissed. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.