THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.16321 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in refusing to receive the applications of the petitioners for the post of Shramik by according the age relaxation who have completed apprenticeship in APSRTC as relaxed in the previous recruitment as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Shramiks by giving preference to the apprenticeship in APSRTC and by relaxing the age limit. 2. The petitioners belong to Schedule Caste Community and passed ITI in Diesel Mechanic Trade and undergone apprenticeship in the said trade in 1st respondent corporation for a period of two years. The 1st respondent corporation issued recruitment notification, dated 01-11-2010 for filling up the vacancies of Shramiks and in the said notification, relaxation of age was permitted to the extent of 5 years in respect of SC/ST/BC candidates. The petitioners applied for the said posts and attended interview on 11-01-2011. After seeing the selection list, they found that their names were not in the list. When they approached the respondents, they informed that due to over age, the petitioners were not selected though they are having required qualifications. Questioning the same, they filed W.P.1571 of 2011 and the same is pending. As several irregularities were committed by the respondents in selection process and the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents cancelled the selections. Thereafter, the respondents issued notification for recruitment of Shramiks on regular basis in APSRTC Zonal Work Shop, Karimnagar and the age limit prescribed is 30 years and relaxation of age was permitted to the extent of 5 years in respect of SC/ST/BC candidates. When the petitioners approached the 3rd respondent for submission of applications, the staff of 3rd respondent refused to receive the same on the ground that they are over aged. ITI candidates who have completed apprenticeship in APSRTC were given necessary age relaxation from time to time by the 1st respondent by invoking power of age relaxation conferred under Regulation 9 of APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Regulation, 1966. The petitioners though undergone and completed training in APSRTC as apprentices would not get a chance as the recruitment to the post of Shramiks was not taken up by APSRTC. Thus all the petitioners have crossed the maximum age limit of 35 years prescribed for the post of Shramiks. The action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioners to the post of Shramiks by granting relaxation of age in respect of petitioners is bad and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that for the same posts, which were notified now, have been earlier notified and that notification was cancelled and at that point of time, relaxation of age was given to the petitioners and the same benefit may be extended to the petitioners for this notification also. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that only in exceptional cases the competent authority can relax the age for ten years maximum in case of S.Cs and S.Ts and therefore, there are no grounds to entertain the writ petition. 5. The factual matrix is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that respondents notified Shramiks posts for zonal work shop. The age prescribed for the said post is 30 years. Age relaxation is five years in case of S.C, S.T and B.C. candidates. All the petitioners are Scheduled Caste persons. According to the affidavit filed in support of the petition, petitioners 1 and 2 are aged about 39 years and 3rd petitioner is aged about 40 years. It is not in dispute that 1st petitioner underwent apprenticeship training from 28-02-2002 to 27-02-2004, 2nd petitioner underwent training from 09-04-2001 to 09-04-2003 and 3rd petitioner underwent training from 07-12-1994 to 06-12-1996 in various depots of 2nd respondent region. In terms of notification, though the petitioners are not eligible to submit the applications for the posts because of crossing of age of 35 years, at the same time the competent authority can relax the age as per Regulation 9 of APSRTC Recruitment Regulations, 2004, which reads thus: “Notwithstanding anything in these Regulations a competent authority may in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing make an order exempting any person or class of persons from the age limit prescribed therein.” Proviso to the said regulation reads thus: “Provided that a further concession of years in addition to the age concession of 5 years as above, shall be allowed in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities when a limited recruitment is conducted under Regulation 12 (2) (f)(i) subject to the condition that after allowing such age concession of 10 (ten) years under this proviso, the age of the candidate shall not also exceed the age of 45 years.” By virtue of the above proviso, the competent authority can relax age concession of 10 years. Therefore, the regulation empowers the competent authority to relax the age. It is the competent authority to decide whether the case of the petitioners falls under the purview of exceptional circumstances. For this purpose, appropriate decision has to be taken by the competent authority. 6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to receive the applications of the petitioners subject to orders that may be passed by the competent authority under Regulation 9 of APSRTC Recruitment Regulations, 2004. No order as to costs. ---------------------- K.C.BHANU, J. DATED: 15-06-2011 Hsd