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 this stage, it is apposite to note relevant portion of the order in Dis. No. 123 of 2021 dated 03.07.2021, which reads as follows: "The Chairman-cum-Prl. District Judge, District Legal Services Authority, Ananthapuramu is pleaded to pass following order: The contract of Sri A. Sitaram, Head Clerk (Contract Basis), Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Ananthapuramu is terminated with effect from 05-07-2021 A.N. as he has attained the age of 65 years, subject to result of W.P. No. 8959/2021 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh." 8. The appointment order of the petitioner dated 31.03.2017 goes to show that the appointment made on contract basis is liable to be terminated without assigning any reasons. The appointment order of the petitioner dated 31.03.2017 goes to show that the appointment made on contract basis is liable to be terminated without assigning any reasons. Clause (xii) of General Instructions of the said notification provides that on appointment, the employees shall enter into an agreement with the Chairman-cum-Principal District Judge, District Legal Services Authority, Ananthapuramu, initially for a period of one year, subject to renewal for a further period from time to time at the discretion of the Appointing Authority and subject to continuance of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Ananthapuramu. In the case of P. Subrahmanyam Pillai (supra), it was noted as follows: "It is an admitted fact that no specific rules have been framed governing service conditions of the employees of the permanent Lok Adalats, who are re-appointed after their retirement. The very notification referred to above inviting applications clearly shows that the appointment is purely temporary and contractual and that the tenure of the appointee is subject to renewal once in every year. Condition Nos. 1 and 2 of the advertisement were incorporated by way of Clause Nos. 5 and 7 in the appointment order of the petitioner which reads as under: "5. The tenure of appointment will be for one year and further period will be subject to renewal in future. 6. ..... 7. The appointment of the individual is purely on temporary and contract basis." In the absence of any statutory provision or executive order, prescribing the age of retirement or minimum tenure for an employee, the terms mentioned in the advertisement and also the appointment order govern his right. A proper analysis of the advertisement and the appointment order of the petitioner would leave us in no doubt that his tenure is purely temporary under a contract and that respondent No. 1 is free not to renew the contract appointment of the petitioner beyond one year period." 9. It was further observed as follows: "A perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Judge has misread the advertisement and formed a wrong opinion that since the petitioner will be completing 65 years on 31-05-2016, he shall retire. He appears to have formed this erroneous opinion based on the age criterion mentioned in the notification, which says that a retired Junior Assistant/Typist should be below 65 years of age. He appears to have formed this erroneous opinion based on the age criterion mentioned in the notification, which says that a retired Junior Assistant/Typist should be below 65 years of age. This stipulation, in our understanding, is to the effect that any person, who has not completed the age of 65 years, is eligible for being considered and appointed and he could be continued beyond 65 years also on an year to year basis, if the appointing authority is satisfied with his services. At any point of time, if the appointing authority feels that the services of the employee shall be put an end to, it shall be free to do so on the expiry of the contract tenure. On the analysis as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No. 1 to consider whether to continue the petitioner as Head Clerk irrespective of the fact that he has completed the age of 65 years based on his performance. If respondent No. 1 feels satisfied with the petitioner's performance, he shall be free to extend the latter's services further and this process may be repeated year after year till respondent No. 1 feels that the services of the petitioner are no longer required." 10. Since the learned counsel for the parties agree that this case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in P. Subrahmanyam Pillai (supra), this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment and order passed in P. Subrahmanyam Pillai providing that if the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Ananthapuram, feels satisfied with the petitioner's performance, he shall be free to extend the services of the petitioner further notwithstanding that the petitioner has completed 65 years of age. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.