THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION NO. 5457 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (PER BPR,J) The petitioners in this writ filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are unsuccessful applicants before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad who seek a Writ of Certiorari, inter alia, assailing the correctness of the orders in O.A.No. 9997/2001, dated 25-1-2007 dismissing the application filed by them under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 where they sought for a declaration that the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to legal heirs of the deceased Village Administrative Officer, who died after 62 years and terminating all such appointment is arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable, and accordingly to set aside the orders passed by the 1st respondent in Memo No. 42159/VO.2/2000-2 dated 20-2-2001 and to declare the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in Rc.A1/1846/2001, dated 28-12-2001 as being illegal. The entire claim of the applicants, who are working as Village Administrative Officers at various villages in Nellore District is that having regard to the nature of scheme as enunciated, they should have been given the compassionate appointment, but the imposition of twin restrictions, one in regard to the age and another denying those who crossed the age is wholly misconceived. This application was contested by the State denying such enforceable right and the claim as set forth being totally misconceived. On a consideration of the respective contentions, pleas and pleadings, the tribunal did not find favour with the applicants in regard to any such enforceable claim and further having taken note of the fact that during pendency of these proceedings, the Government by G.O.Ms.No.14, Rev., dated 15-1-2002 rescinded the Andhra Pradesh Village Administrative Officers Service Rules with effect from 1-1-2002, and in view of the same, the entire matter and the lis has become infructuous and accordingly dismissed the same. Hence this writ petition. We heard in detail the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services II appearing on behalf of the respondents. During the course of the arguments, it has been pointed out that amongst the petitioners, the petitioners 1 and 3 have already been appointed and were given appointment orders and now it remains only with the other petitioners. Even falling back to the other petitioners, whose case was not considered and denied, the answer would be virtually as the one, which has been found by the tribunal. Necessarily, it has to be seen that in view of the recession of the very rules with effect from 1-1-2002 and there being no such challenge by the applicants or the petitioners even in this Court about the validity or correctness of such recession or making out any case as to existence of any enforceable right, we do not find any merits in the above writ petition. The writ petition lacks in merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No Costs. ________________ (B PRAKASH RAO,J) _______________ (B.N.RAO NALLA,J) DATE: 11.4.2011 GRK