THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 16807 OF 2011 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the condition fixing upper age limit of 30 years as on 01.07.2011 in the Notification dated 31.05.2011 issued by the respondents 3 and 4 for filling up of vacancies of Shramiks, and further insisting for apprenticeship with the units of APSRTC, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows. The petitioner completed S.S.C., I.T.C. in Diesel Mechanical Course and also apprenticeship training from Udaya Diesel Services, Nizamabad. The third respondent issued Notification on 31.05.2011 to fill up posts of Shramiks. The petitioner approached the respondents 3 and 4, along with applications and certificates, to consider his candidature for the said post. But, they refused to receive his application on the ground that he has not undergone apprenticeship in the Units of APSRTC, and they did not allow him to participate in the process of selection. Further, the age limit prescribed in the Notification is 30 years, and a relaxation of five years can be given in appropriate cases for the candidates belonging to S.C., S.T. and Backward Classes. As the petitioner crossed 35 years, his application was also not received on the ground that he crossed the age limit. Last recruitment was made by the respondent corporation in the year 1996 or 1997, where the upper age limit was fixed at 35 years and a relaxation of five years was given for the above categories. The present Notification was given after 14 or 15 years, prescribing the upper age limit at 30 years. The conditions imposed by the respondents are detrimental to public policy, arbitrary and infringe fundamental rights. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the interim order dated 16.11.2010 given by this Court in W.P. M.P. No.35860 of 2010 in W.P. No.28119 of 2010, the operative portion of which reads thus: “Hence, there shall be interim direction to the respondents to receive and process the application by extending the benefit of relaxation to an extent of four years in favour of those candidates, who have undergone apprenticeship training with the Corporation.” The above interim order has no application to the facts of the present case, because considering the fact that the candidates therein have undergone apprenticeship training in the respondent-Corporation, such direction was given. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner had not undergone any apprenticeship in any one of the units of APSRTC. 5. Under Regulation 9 of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ Recruitment Regulations, 1966, the appointing authority has power to relax age limit in certain circumstances. The said Regulation reads thus: “Notwithstanding anything in these Regulations, the competent authority, may, in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order exempting any person or class of persons from the age limit prescribed therein.” Even in the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition, there were no exceptional circumstances to enable the appointing authority to relax the age. Even otherwise, the petitioner has to make representation to the competent authority to consider for relaxation duly furnishing the exceptional circumstances. Thereafter, the competent authority has to take appropriate decision. This procedure has not been followed by the petitioner. There are no exceptional circumstances relating to age in respect of the present petitioner. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances, a writ of mandamus cannot be given to respondents to relax the age. 6. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 20.06.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 16807 OF 2011 20.06.2011