IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18486 of 2006 Between: 1 Siddamsetty Venu S/o.Rajesham R/o. Seetharampur, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2 Kasireddy Tirupathi Reddy S/o.Venkat Rajireddy R/o. Pachunoor, Manakondur (M), Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 APNPDCL, Corporate Office, Warangal, Warangal District, rep. by its Managing Director. 2 The Director (HRD & Comml), APNPDC, Warangal. 3 The Superintending Engineer, Operation, APNPDC, Near District Court, Jagitial Road, Karimnagar. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not providing the upper age relaxation in respect of contract labour in the impugned notiﬁcation as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners on contract basis or regular basis by granting relaxation of age and pass such other orders as may be just. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA Counsel for the Respondents: MR. P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18486 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioners feel aggrieved by the stipulation of age limit in the notiﬁcations dated 06.06.2006 and 23.10.2006 for the post of Contract Junior Lineman. According to them, they were within the age limit stipulated under notiﬁcation dated 07.10.2005 and the respondents have superceded the said notiﬁcation without carrying the selection process. They seek a declaration to the eﬀect that the action of the respondents in not providing relaxation of upper age limit in favour of contract labour is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The respondents ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit opposing the claim of the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The selections in pursuance of the notiﬁcations dated 06.06.2006 and 23.10.2006 have already been concluded. Further, this Court dealt with the method of selection under the said notiﬁcations in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.19051 of 2007 and batch. It is stated that a batch of writ appeals is pending against the said Judgment. Therefore, the petitioners have to abide by the Judgment that may be rendered by the Division Bench in the pending batch of writ appeals. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, by observing that the rights of the petitioners in relation to the claim made by them shall be subject to the outcome of the writ appeals filed against the Judgment in W.P.No.19051 of 2007 and batch. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY 5th August, 2008. IBL