THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24549 of 2010 ORDER: The respondents issued notifications on 08.06.2006 and 20.10.2006 inviting applications for appointment of Junior Lineman on contract basis. It is stated that both the petitioners were selected in all the tests conducted by the respondents, but were not appointed on the ground that some applicants, who secured equal marks, are older to them. They placed reliance upon Clause 6 (iv) (c) of the notifications. The validity of that Clause fell for consideration by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1434 of 2009 and batch. Through a common judgment, dated 10.11.2009, the Division Bench held that such a Clause is untenable and the same was set aside. It was directed that the relief in this regard shall be extended to the persons, who figured as parties in W.A.No.1434 of 2009 and batch and to others who are similarly situated. The petitioners contend that though they are entitled to be extended the benefit of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench, the respondents have not appointed them. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The reasons on account of which the petitioners were not appointed are not immediately before this Court. Even if it is true that they were denied appointment on the basis of Clause 6 (iv) ( c ) of the notifications, the respondents can extend the benefit of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench, if only the petitioners made a representation. The record does not disclose that the petitioners have made any such representation. Even now, they can approach the authorities concerned. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to make a representation narrating their grievance to the respondents. In case it is found that the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of the judgment in W.A.No.1434 of 2009, the respondents shall extend the same within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of the representation that may be made by the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:01.10.2010 kdl