IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5213 of 2006 Between: M.B. Srinivas, S/o. Bhumaiah under the Control of Assistant Engineer,Operation Circle, A.P Transco. Machareddy, Nizamabad Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief General Manager,(HRD) N.P.D.C.L, Opp. To Rec Petrol Bank, Warangal. 2 The Superintending Engineer, A.P. Nothern, Power Distribution Company, Limited, Nizamabad. .....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 jTo issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the prescription of age of 25 years for direct recruitment to the post of Junior Lineman as per the present Notiﬁcation issued by the respondents is as illegal, and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled for selection and appointment to the post of Junior Lineman a diﬀerent circles including Nizamabad Dist issued by the Chief General Manager(HRD), NPDCL Warangal with all consequential beneﬁts by holding the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment as respondents in not case of the petitioner for appointment as junior Linemen on the that the has crossed 25 years of age as on 31-1-2006 is as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the constitution and pass such other and futher orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5213 of 2006 ORDER: The respondents issued a notiﬁcation, inviting applications for the posts of Junior Linemen on contract basis. One of the conditions prescribed by the respondents is that a candidate must not be below the age of 18 years and above 25 years, as on 31.01.2006. Relaxation up to the extent of 5 years was prescribed in favour of the candidates belonging to S.C., S.T. and B.C. categories. The petitioner states that he crossed the age of 30 years and on account of non-issuance of notiﬁcations for a fairly long time, he could not secure employment. He contends that the stipulation of such age limit, that too, in a notiﬁcation issued after so many years, is untenable in law. The respondents ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit, stating that the petitioner does not have any right to apply, even after crossing the prescribed age limit. Certain other pleas are also taken. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Not only did the respondents stipulate the age limits but also indicated the extent, to which the relaxation in favour of certain categories of candidates, was provided. The petitioner belongs to B.C. Category and he had the advantage of relaxation to an extent of ﬁve years. If he does not come within that age limit, nobody can help it. The respondents cannot be said to have committed any illegality in stipulating the age limits, that too by providing the age relaxation in favour of certain categories of candidates. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 04.08.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5213 of 2006 Date: 04.08.2008 JSU