IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 25470 of 2006 Between: Tandi Raju S/o. Tandi Kavi Raju R/o. Railway Quarter No. 66/J, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Member Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, Railway Office Complex, Chutia, 2 Union of India, Rep. by Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for records pertainaing to the impugned order dt. 16-11-2006 in O.A.No. 382/2006 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same by declaring them as arbitrary illegal, violative of Article 14, 16 ad 21 of the Constitution and consequently directing the respondents to produce the records pertaining to the Member Secretary, Railway Board Ir.No. RRB/RNC/Rep/453 dt. 17/20-6-2006 rejecting appointment to me after due process of selection and also having been declared found eligible for the post of Technician -III (Linemen) in scale 3050-4590 and quash the same by declaring it as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently direct the respondents to issue appointment letter to me taking into consideration the original date notified in the notification as by that time I was within the prescribed age limit of 35 years by declaring that change of cut of age to 1-7-2005 as arbitrary illegal and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution with costs for the unwarranted mental agony and hardship caused to me and pass any other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.V.SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.S.MURTHY The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to issue writ or direction in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 16.11.2006 in O.A.No. 382 of 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and quash the same by declaring the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to produce the records pertaining to the Member Secretary, Railway Board Lr. No. RRB/RNC/Rep/453 dated 17/20.06.2006, wherein he rejected the appointment to the applicant after due process of selection and also having been declared found him eligible for the post of Technician-III (Linemen) in Scale Rs. 3050-4590 and direct the respondent to issue appointment letter taking into consideration the original date notified in the notification, as by that time the petitioner was within the prescribed age limit of 35 years by declaring the change of cut of age to 1.7.2005 as arbitrary. The case of the petitioner, who is the applicant in O.A.No. 382 of 2006 is that pursuant to the notification issued by the Railway Recruitment Board on 26.2.2005, he applied for the post of Technician-III (Lineman) in the scale Rs. 3050-4590/- as he fulfilled all the requisite qualifications prescribed as per the notification. His further case is that he was issued a call letter for attending written test on 4.12.2005. His contention is that as per the notification issued on 26.2.2005, the age will be reckoned as on 1.1.2005. Since his date of birth is 1.6.1970, he was within the age limit prescribed for the said post. As he did not receive any appointment letter he submitted a representation to the respondents on 9.6.2006, which was replied to by the respondents, vide letter dated 17/20.6.2006 informing the petitioner that after the issuance of notice, it came to the notice of the respondents that the reckoning of age as on 1.1.2005 was incorrect, therefore, a corrigendum was issued correcting the age by replacing the date 1.1.2005 to that of 1.7.2005 and in terms of said cut-off date i.e., 1.7.2005, the petitioner was over-aged, and therefore, his candidature has been rejected. Aggrieved by the same, he approached the Tribunal by way of O.A. The Tribunal after examining the matter, held that the respondents have acted as per the rules by correcting the mistake committed and therefore, the applicant admittedly has crossed the age prescribed under the corrigendum, and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and accordingly dismissed the O.A imposing costs at Rs. 500/- on the respondents for dragging the applicant to the Court. Heard both sides and perused the order impugned. A bare reading of the impugned order discloses that the Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner herein is not entitled for any relief since he was over-aged on the cutoff date i.e. 1.7.2005 and the respondents have acted as per the rules by correcting the mistake committed by them. Further the Tribunal rightly imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- on the respondents for dragging the petitioner to Court. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED ,J ___________________________ C.V.RAMULU, J Dt. 04.07.2008 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Member Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, Railway Office Complex, Chutia, 2 Union of India, Rep. by Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, 3. 2CD copies