HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.21943 of 2010 Dated: 03-09-2010 Between: L.Kumaraswamy …Petitioner AND The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat Complex, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others. Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.21943 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Notification inviting applications for appointment to 18 posts of District & Sessions Judge (Entry Level) in the A.P.State Judicial Service to be made by direct recruitment, published in the Deccan Chronicle Newspaper, dated 18.8.2010 is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Petitioner, who is a practicing advocate, aged about 48 years, who is found to be ineligible to apply to the post as the maximum age prescribed is 45 years as on 1.8.2010, contends that he made a representation on 21.8.2010 to his Excellency The Governor of A.P., Hon’ble Chief Justice of A.P., Chief Secretary to Government of A.P. and to the Principal Secretary, Law Department for relaxing the age limit as he has become over aged and ineligible to apply. The said representation has not been disposed of so far, but the learned counsel contends that the petitioner is so confident that his representation will be considered favourably and contends that the syllabus prescribed for the written examination is not specific and contrary to the Rules of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. Rule 6 (3) of A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 prescribes the syllabus; (1) procedural laws; (2) substantive laws; (3) Local laws; and (4) Constitution of India. Whereas, the prescribed syllabus for the written examination is various other subjects as prescribed under serial Nos.1 to 7. The State laws are innumerable and there are more than 90 subjects among which, the questions will be asked has not been specifically stated and therefore, the entire notification is liable to be set aside for want of specific syllabus prescribed for conducting the written examination. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the previous notification in the year 2005, the petitioner appeared and the said notification and that the selection made pursuant to the said notification was cancelled for no fault of him and there was no notification/selection from 2005 onwards till the present notification is issued and therefore, some relaxation as to the age has to be granted for the advocates who are eager to join in the judicial service as the vacancies have not been notified for every year. We do not see merit in any of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody can claim relaxation of the minimum qualification or the age limit as a matter of right. It is for the appointing authority to use its discretion for relaxing the age on attending circumstances prevailing at the time of issuance of notification. The selection made pursuant to the notification issued in the year 2007 was not approved by the Full Court and the same was confirmed by this Court in K.V.N.Bhupal v. State of A.P.[1] holding that as on the date of issuance of notification, there are no vacancies to be notified under direct recruitment quota. In view of the same, the contention that for non-issuance of the notification every year, the petitioner is entitled for age relaxation does not arise. Further in the notification, the syllabus in which the written examination will be conducted is clearly specified as under: “(1) Procedural Laws- Civil and Criminal Laws and Law of Evidence; (2) Law concerning tenancy including Land Reforms, Ceiling, Land Acquisition Laws etc.; (3) All State laws; (4) Constitutional Law and Administrative Law; (5) Substantive Laws, such as Transfer of Property, Indian Penal Code, Contract Act, Motor Vehicles Act, Specific Relief Act etc., (6) Laws of inheritence, Succession, Marriage and Divorce; (7) Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.” Therefore, the syllabus prescribed for the written examination is in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission[2] and the Rules framed thereafter under A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. In view of the same, we see no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. __________________ SEPTEMBER 03, 2010 K.C. BHANU, J. Tsr. [1] 2010 (1) ALT 521 (D.B.) [2] (2006) 4 SCC 509