THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.21638 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner functioned as Nodal Prerak under Nirantara Vayojana Vidya Programme. That scheme is said to have been replaced by Saakshara Bharathi introduced by the Central Government. For implementation thereof, the Government of A.P. issued G.O.Rt.No.203, dated 13.04.2010 providing for the method of appointment of Mandal Coordinators and Village Coordinators. This was followed by a notification issued by the competent authority for selection and appointment of Mandal Coordinators. The petitioner, 4th respondent and certain others submitted applications for appointment as Mandal Coordinator for Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The 4th respondent was selected. The petitioner contends that his case was not considered only on the ground that he is over aged and the Government has relaxed the condition as to age limit by issuing G.O.Rt.No.378, dated 08.07.2010. He submits that though a detailed representation was made on 21.07.2010, no reply is given so far. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. In G.O.Rt.No.203, the method of recruitment as well as the qualifications for the candidates to the post of Mandal Coordinator are prescribed. According to this, a candidate for the post of Mandal Coordinator must not exceed 35 years of age, must be a graduate from a recognized university and resident of the Mandal. Preference is given in favour of the persons, who worked as Preraks in the earlier scheme as well as the women, deprived sections and ex-servicemen. It is not in dispute that the petitioner crossed 35 years age as on the date of notification issued for selection to the post of Mandal Coordinator. It is true that the Government relaxed the age limit up to 5 years by issuing G.O.Rt.No.378, dated 08.07.2010. This however has taken place after the selections were concluded. Therefore, it cannot be said that the selection of the 4th respondent is improper or that the petitioner was wrongfully denied the appointment. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. It is however directed that in case, any notification is issued for future vacancies, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered duly applying the age limit stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.378, dated 08.07.2010. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 07.09.2010 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.21638 of 2010 Date: 07.09.2010 JSU