THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.13434 and 13485 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, respondent No.1 herein, issued a notification way back in the year 1991 to fill various posts including Assistant Store Keeper. The petitioners and seven others were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for those posts. All of them were selected. However, on the ground that the regular employees in another wing are becoming surplus, the respondents did not appoint the selected candidates against the notified posts of Assistant Store Keeper. Six out of nine of the selected candidates filed O.S.No.1309 of 1992 in the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Visakhapatnam seeking directions to the respondents to employ them. The suit was decreed on 26.07.1995 and ultimately, the plaintiffs therein were appointed. The petitioners filed W.P.No.844 of 1996 with a prayer to direct the respondents to appoint them in pursuance of their selection in the year 1991. The writ petition was disposed of on 29.08.1997 directing that the case of the petitioners shall be considered against the vacancies that may arise in future, but by subjecting them to selection process. The respondents issued a notification, dated 17.03.2011, proposing to fill various posts including Assistant Store Keeper. The petitioners submitted their applications. However, their cases were not considered on the ground that they are over-aged. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit admitting various facts that are borne out by record. However, it is stated that the petitioners are not entitled to be considered, since they have crossed the age limit prescribed under the notification. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. It is a matter of record that the petitioners were selected for the post of Assistant Store Keeper way back in the year 1991. It is only on account of some of the regular employees becoming surplus, that the petitioners were not issued orders of appointment. Out of nine selected candidates, six persons filed a suit and in compliance with the decree passed therein, the respondents appointed them. They ought to have adopted a uniform approach and appointed the left over candidates also. The petitioners had to approach this Court by filing W.P.No.844 of 1996. The relief granted therein was to the effect that the cases of the petitioners shall be considered against any vacancies that may arise in future. It is only in the recent past, that the vacancies were notified. The petitioners submitted their applications. It is but natural that the petitioners crossed the age limit with reference to the notification issued 20 years after their selection. A meaningful implementation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.844 of 1996 will be that, the petitioners be treated as within the age limit as and when the notification is issued, duly granting relaxation, but by subjecting them to selection process. Obviously because there is no specific direction in this regard, the respondents did not treat the petitioners as within the age limit. The petitioners were ventilating their grievances in one form or the other for the past two decades. They cannot be totally denied the benefit of their having been selected in the year 1991. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed and it is directed that the respondents shall treat the petitioners as within the age limit with reference to the notification issued in March, 2011 and consider their cases for selection to the post of Assistant Store Keeper along with other candidates, who applied in response to the notification. If the selection process has been completed, separate process shall be undertaken for the petitioners, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.09.2011 kdl