IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 24829 of 2009 Between: Syed Imam ..... PETITIONER AND The District Judge, Kadapa District, Kadapa. .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No. 24829 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) By way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to permit him to participate in the selection to the post of Attender pursuant to the notification No.7/2009, dated 17.7.2009 by relaxing the maximum age prescribed in the notification. Petitioner was appointed as Attender on contract basis in the respondent unit by order, dated 10.5.2004 and was posted as Attender in III Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Kadapa. Later, he was considered along with others for appointment on regular basis and he was appointed as Attender vide order, dated 7.5.2005 and he was posted as Process Server in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram. However, he was terminated from service by order, dated 18.12.2006 as his selection was contrary to the provisions of Act No.2 of 1994. Since then he has not worked either on contract basis or as a Process Server. While so, the impugned notification was issued by the respondent inviting applications to the post of Attender under direct recruitment specifying that a candidate should not have completed 34 years of age as on 1.7.2009. Since the petitioner completed 34 years as on 1.6.2009 and is over-aged by one month than the specified age limit, he filed the present writ petition contending that the upper age notified in the impugned notification has to be relaxed and he may be permitted to appear in the selection process to the post of Attender. It is now sell-settled that the cut-off date mentioned in the notification to which al the applicants were required to satisfy their eligibility and the loose practice of relaxing the cut-off date should be discouraged. Admittedly, the petitioner is not eligible to participate in the selection process as he is over-aged than the age prescribed in the notification. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon decisions of the Apex Court in Khagesh Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration[1] and Inspector General of Registration, U.P. v. Avdesh Kumar & Others[2] are misplaced to the facts of the present case since, as already noticed, the petitioner is not in service from December, 2006 onwards. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek any relaxation of age limit. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) ____________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.) NOVEMBER 25, 2009 TSR [1] 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 182 [2] (1996) 9 SCC 217