IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 26521 of 2008 Between: D. Venkata Kondaiah S/o. Thirupathaiah R/o. Chakirala Village, Kangiri Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman , District Mahila Samakya C/o. D.R.D.A. Prakasam District at Ongole. 2 The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3 The A.P. Stating Housing Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, H.No. 3-6-184, Uruduglli, 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declare the Notification dt. 9-10-2008 in so far as irregular age prescription is concerned for the post of Assistant Engineer is bad and unconstitutional and further direct the respondents to give fresh advertisement for the said post and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.ELAMADHAR Counsel for Respondents: MR.K.MOHAN RAMI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed to declare the notification, dated 9.10.2008, issued by the Chairman, District Mahila Samakya, Prakasam District, Ongole-the first respondent prescribing the age limit to the post of Assistant Engineer, as bad and unconstitutional and further direct the respondents to give fresh advertisement for the said post. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent-A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, and at their request the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. It is stated that the petitioner is an Engineering graduate. The respondents issued notification on 9.10.2008 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer for which, the age prescribed is below 30 years. The petitioner submitted his application for the said post. The main grievance of the petitioner is that prescription of age as 30 years is bad in law and contrary to the rules, and due to that he, along with similarly placed persons, is deprived from submitting their applications. He also submits that the respondents did not give the age exemption even in respect of reserved categories. He further submits that the selection process still exists, and the same is not yet finalized. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that according to the rules the normal age is 34 years for general category and five years relaxation for the reserved categories in any department either under State or under Autonomous Sectors. Hence he sought a direction to the respondents to enhance the age limit from 30 years to 35 years. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent contended that in pursuance of the notification, appointments were already made and apart from the petitioner there are 16 other persons, who crossed the age limit, and who were also not considered. In view of the fact that pursuant to the impugned notification appointments were already made, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. ________________ (N.V.RAMANA, J.) 5th December, 2008 Js/Msv