ORDER : Abhinand Kumar Shavili, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the respondent passed in R.O.C.No.1269/2003/Vigilance Cell, dated 15.09.2003, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India, and consequently expunge the orders of the respondent dated 15.09.2003 in the interest of justice. 2. Heard Mr. T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y. Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court of Telangana, for the respondent. 3. Petitioner had contended that he was initially appointed as District Munsif (Junior Civil Judge) on 16.08.1976, and after rendering considerable length of service, he was promoted as Sub Judge (Senior Civil Judge) on 24.02.1986. Thereafter he was further promoted as District and Sessions Judge on 23.03.1992 and further promoted as District and Sessions Judge, Grade – I on 05.12.2000. The petitioner was further placed in Super-Time Scale vide G.O.Ms.No.84, dated 29.05.2006. 4. Petitioner’s grievance is that while he was working as I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, this Court had disposed of one Civil Revision Petition No.4398 of 2002, dated 23.10.2002, directing the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad to number I.A.(S.R.) No. 2701 of 2002 in O.S.No.20 of 2002 filed under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and to pass appropriate orders. 5. The Defendant in the said suit had filed I.A.(S.R.) No.2701 of 2002 in O.S.No.20 of 2002 under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to set aside the ex parte order, dated 09.04.2002 and to receive the application seeking leave to defend the suit. Thereafter, the learned Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad returned the application on 26.06.2002 on the administrative side by raising certain queries with regard to maintainability of the petition. 6. The query was mainly with regard to maintainability of I.A.(S.R.) No. 2701/2002, while I.A.(S.R.) No. 2705/2002 was still pending. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the matter ultimately reached the High Court by way of Civil Revision Petition No.4398 of 2002, the High Court vide orders, dated 23.10.2002, returned the application directing the Trial Court to register I.A.(S.R.) No.2701 of 2002, which was returned and not represented by the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the matter ultimately reached the High Court by way of Civil Revision Petition No.4398 of 2002, the High Court vide orders, dated 23.10.2002, returned the application directing the Trial Court to register I.A.(S.R.) No.2701 of 2002, which was returned and not represented by the petitioner. Thereupon, petitioner entertained a bona fide and genuine doubt as to whether I.A.(S.R.) No. 2701/2002, which was filed to set aside the ex parte decree, could be registered and disposed of without disposing of I.A.S.R. No. 2705/2002, which was filed to condone the delay application. 8. This Court while allowing the Civil Revision Petition has made certain observations and issued the following directions : “The trial court did not even number the applications and returned the said applications with an endorsement that they are not maintainable and hence the present revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the respondent could not place any material to sustain the impugned order. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. But, in view of the fact that the petitioner already suffered a decree which he is now seeking to be set aside and in view of the fact that the execution petition is said to have been filed by the decree holder / respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this Revision petition directing the trial court to number the above mentioned I.A. (Sub-Register No.2701 of 2002) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order.” 9. Aggrieved by the said observation in Civil Revision Petition, petitioner addressed a letter, dated 11.02.2003, to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court, requesting for certain clarifications; and this conduct of the petitioner in writing a clarification was considered as misconduct, and an impression was given to the respondent that petitioner was sitting in judgment over the correctness of the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.4398 of 2002. Thereafter, petitioner’s case was placed before the Administrative Committee. The Administrative Committee, vide its Resolution dated 11.09.2003, has resolved to caution the Officer i.e., writ petitioner; and directed it to be careful in future. 10. Thereafter, petitioner’s case was placed before the Administrative Committee. The Administrative Committee, vide its Resolution dated 11.09.2003, has resolved to caution the Officer i.e., writ petitioner; and directed it to be careful in future. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the Administrative Committee, dealing with disciplinary matters, passed a resolution which is not amounting to punishment, however, in view of such adverse entry in the Service Register, his case was not considered for continuation beyond 58 years and he was made to retire prematurely. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that appropriate orders be passed in writ petition by expunging the resolution dated 11.09.2003 passed by the Administrative Committee in respect of cautioning the petitioner to be careful in future. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that petitioner had retired long before, and only after retirement the present writ petition was filed. He further contended that at this point of time, no interference is called for and the resolution dated 11.09.2003 passed by the Administrative Committee is only advisory in nature and the petitioner was directed to be careful in future and to be cautious. Therefore, no punishment was imposed by the respondent on the petitioner, and no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner. Moreover, at present, petitioner is aged about 71 years, and no interference is called for with the impugned order and the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. This Court, having considered the rival contentions of the parties, is of the considered view that no Judicial Officer will have any right to continue beyond the age of superannuation, i.e., (58) years as a matter of right. The Administrative Committee would evaluate the worthiness of Judicial Officer from various aspects, and the Administrative Committee, in its wisdom, has taken a decision not to continue the petitioner beyond (58) years. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondent. 13. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 14. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.