THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.9360 of 2007 19.3.2008 Between: Kunduru Kaspar Reddy … Petitioner AND The Registrar (General), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad And another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.9360 of 2007 ORDER: Petitioner is a practicing advocate at Gurazala. He has about two decades of practice in Law. Second respondent herein issued a notification/advertisement on 15.4.2007 inviting applications for appointment to twenty-three (23) posts of District and Sessions Judges in Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service, inter alia, a candidate must not have completed forty-five (45) years of age as on 01.4.2007, to be considered for appointment. Petitioner herein statedly completed forty-five years two months and twenty five days as on that date. His grievance is that if only respondents had advertised employment notification every year he could not have faced such a predicament. According to him, second respondent, for about 2½ years, did not take up recruitment for the posts of District and Sessions Judges in Andhra Pradesh, though there are vacancies. In this background, he approached Government of Andhra Pradesh on 25.4.2007 requesting for permission to appear for written examination duly relaxing age qualification. As there was no response, petitioner approached this Court seeking direction to Government of Andhra Pradesh to allow petitioner to appear for written examination by relaxing age by two months twenty-five days. Learned Counsel for petitioner placing strong reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v Jagannath Achyut Karandikar[1] and P.Srinivas v M.Radhakrishna Murthy[2] submits that even though Andhra Pradesh Sate Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1958, do not confer power of relaxation on appointing authority, namely, second respondent herein, by implication as an incidental power such eventuality has to be read into relevant Rules. Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Rules 1958, were made in exercise of power under Article 233 of Constitution of India and proviso to Article 309 read with Article 313 of Constitution. These Rules nowhere deal with power of relaxation. Such power is not explicitly granted to Government or High Court. In the absence of such conferment, Government cannot be directed to consider request of petitioner for relaxation. Be it noted, power of relaxation, exemption or imposing penalty has to be specifically granted by legislation or subordinate legislation. The two decisions relied on by learned Counsel for petitioner, have no relevance at all. In the absence of such explicit power of relaxation, second respondent cannot be asked to consider request of petitioner, as it would amount to issuing a Mandamus to a public authority to ignore law or act contrary to law. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) _______________ (C.V.RAMULU,J) March 19, 2008 YS [1] AIR 1989 SC 1133 [2] (2004) 2 SCC 459