HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL Nos.1531 and 1640 of 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Kumar) The order dated 05/07/2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.21768 of 1999 is subjected to challenge in these two appeals. W.A.No.1531 of 2002 is filed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board, the second respondent in the writ petition, while W.A.No.1640 of 2002 is filed by the writ petitioners. The grievance of the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge was with regard to the action of the Pollution Control Board in taking steps to advertise the posts of Analysts Grade-II held by the petitioners, by terminating their services. They also sought a consequential direction to the respondents to absorb and regularize their services in the said posts. By the order dated 05/07/2002, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to subject the writ petitioners to the written test to be conducted by the JNTU and to continue such of the petitioners who were successful in the test on contract basis on the same terms as were made applicable to the candidates who were appointed through orders dated 04/06/2001, pursuant to the selections held in 2001. The learned Judge observed that the writ petitioners who were successful in the test should be treated on par with the candidates selected vide orders dated 04/06/2001 for all practical purposes. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioners and the respondent Pollution Control Board preferred the present appeals. It is stated by Sri K.R.Prabhakar, learned counsel representing Sri L.Ravi Chander, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.1640 of 2002, that out of the eleven writ petitioners four had retired from service, five have been selected in the regular selections and therefore, only two of his clients viz., S.Srinivas, appellant No.6 and V.Venkateshwar Rao, appellant No.10, remain to be appointed. He fairly submitted that these persons are now in excess of the age bar prescribed by the rules for appointment to the post in question. He, however, sought a direction to the respondent Pollution Control Board to consider their cases in the regular selection process, overlooking the age qualification. Per contra, Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P. Pollution Control Board, submitted that once they have exceeded the age bar, the cases of the two appellants cannot be considered in contravention of the rules unless specific exemption/relaxation is granted. It is to be noticed that when the order in the writ petition was passed in the year 2002, these two appellants viz., appellant Nos.6 and 10 in W.A.No.1640 of 2002, were not disqualified in so far as the age qualification is concerned. It is only because of passage of time thereafter that they are now no longer entitled as per rules. However, it is not for this Court to direct the respondent Pollution Control Board to act in violation of its rules. It is for the Board itself to consider as to whether the cases of these two appellants require any special exemption or relaxation as permitted under the rules, for consideration of their cases for selection and appointment to the posts of Analysts Grade-II. Both the Writ Appeals are accordingly disposed of leaving it open to the A.P. Pollution Control Board to exercise its discretion in accordance with the rules with regard to the exemption or relaxation of the age qualification in so far as S.Srinivas and V.Venkateshwar Rao, appellant Nos.6 and 10 in W.A.No.1640 of 2002 are concerned and take necessary action in the matter with regard to consideration of their cases for appointment to the posts of Analysts Grade-II. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ Date: 15-09-2009 SANJAY KUMAR, J SKM