IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.26401 of 2008 Between: Karri Narasa Reddy, S/o. Satyanaryana Reddy, R/o. Door No. 1-101, Mahendrawada Village, Anaparthy Mandal, East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Rep by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhawan, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 General Administration Department, Rep by its Secretary, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to pass order or direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not allowing the petitioner to participate in Oral Test Conducted on 4-11-2008 as per interview call letter Memo No. 397/RS-8/2007, dt. -10-2008 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional and against the Right to Life and violative of principles of natural justice under Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and 309 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to allow the petitioner for interview vide Notification No. 10/2007 for the recruitment of Executive Officers Grade-III (Direct) Sub-Service in Endowments Department and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.PRAKASAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR.M.VIJAYAKUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.26401 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not allowing the petitioner to participate in Oral Test Conducted on 4.11.2008 as per interview call letter Memo No. 397/RS-8/2007, dt. -10-2008, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner seeks employment in Government Service. His grievance is that though his application was entertained by the first respondent – Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for the examination to be conducted on 27.04.2008 and he was qualified for the oral test, the first respondent rejected his candidature on the ground that he is age barred just prior to one day of oral test. Since the petitioner is seeking employment in the Government Service, he has to approach the Administrative Tribunal. Even according to the petitioner, he has already approached the Tribunal and filed O.A.No.9550 of 2008 seeking its intervention along with similarly other situated persons. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 03.12.2008 va