IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 12229 of 2008 Between: M.V. Ratnakar Babu, S/o. Sumiyon, O/o. Senior Section Engineer (AC), S.C. Railway, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 3 The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), S.C. Railway, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad. 4 The Divisional Railway Manager (Electrical), S.C. Railway, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad. 5 Sri K.V. Murali Mohan, S/o.NOt Known, o/o. Senior Section Engineer (AC), S.C. Railway, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. .....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 Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 in fixing the age of 45 years under Para 141(1) (ii) of ITEM and selecting the 5th Respondent as selected Candidate for the post of Junior Engineer -II(A.C.) vide Proceedings No. YP/535/Elec.Cadr/JE-II/AC/LDCE, dt. 29-2-2008 of the 3rd Respondent which was confirmed by the Central Administrtive Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No. 569/07, dt. 17-1-2008 and O.A.No. 192/08, dt. 01-04- 2008 i sillegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer-II(A.C.) with all monetary benefits including Seniority, Pay fixation and arrears of salary and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.M.NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.S.MURTHY The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.12229 OF 2008 ORDER (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed): This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.569 of 2007, dated 17-01-2008 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer –II (A.C.) with all monetary benefits including seniority, pay fixation and arrears of salary. 2. The writ petitioner asserts that he filed an application before the Tribunal questioning the Notification dated 11-07-2007, issued by the 1st respondent inviting applications for selection for the post of Junior Engineer Grade II (AC) in the scale of Rs.5000-8000 (RP) against 25% LDCE quota. He was initially working as a Technician Gr. I. In pursuance of the notification, the petitioner submitted an application on 30-07-2007 within the prescribed date. Apprehending that his application will not be considered in view of the condition No.(c) prescribed in the notification to the effect that one should not be more than 45 years as on 01-01-2008, the applicant filed the present O.A. 569 of 2007 on 08-08-2007 contending that the notification fixing the age as 45 years for all the categories without giving relaxation to the SC, ST employees is illegal. The cut off date fixed in the notification for reckoning the age is 01-01-2008 in spite of the fact that the entire selection would be completed by 01-09-2007 is illegal and fixing the age as 45 years without giving relaxation to the reserve categories is arbitrary and violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. The respondents filed counter-affidavit, denying the averments made in the application. They stated that the applicant has not fulfilled the condition relating to the age as specified in para 140 (1) (ii) of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol.I. There is no age relaxation in respect of employees belonging to S.C., and S.T. who wish to appear in departmental examinations. It is further stated that the date of birth of the applicant is 04-11-1960 and even if his age is reckoned as on the date of the notification, he would have crossed the maximum age limit. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. The Tribunal framed the following point for consideration: 1) Whether the applicant is entitled to appear for the examination for selection to the post of Junior Engineer Gr.II (AC) notified under Annexure A-1 Notification dated 11-07-2007? and 2) To what relief?. 5. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal held that: “It is not in dispute that as per the condition laid down in the notification, one should not be more than 45 years of age as on 01-01-2008 for selection for post of Junior Engineer Gr. II (AC) (reserved for 25% LDCE quota). It is also not in dispute that the date of birth of the applicant is 04- 11-1960. The applicant crossed 45 years even by 03-11-2005. Though the applicant contended that as he belongs to Scheduled Caste community, he should be given age relaxation. It is stated that the relaxation has to be given to SC or ST candidates. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents produced a copy of the Serial Circular dated 01-07-1997, whereunder 25% of the vacancies are reserved for the candidates who are matriculates and aged 45 years with 3 years of regular service. He has also produced before us the Advance Correction Slip No.34 of IREM wherein it is incorporated that the 25% from the service employees who passed matriculation and completed 3 years of satisfactory service and whose record is satisfactory and who are aged below 45 are to be considered. It is needless to mention that 25% quota is prescribed for LDCE besides imposition of age restriction on 25% LDCE quota. Therefore the condition relating to LDCE alone is applicable. The Railway Board, in its discretion imposed restriction in respect of 25% LDCE quota. The respondents cannot be directed to prove relaxation of age in respect of candidates belonging to a particular community.” 6. The Tribunal has dismissed the application, however, to protect the interest of the petitioner, directed him to make an application to the authorities concerned to seek age relaxation for considering the same by the respondents in accordance with rules relating to the relaxation. Challenging the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no acceptable reason for fixing 45 years of age to candidates who appear for the selection under L.D.C.E. quota to the post of Junior Engineer Grade-II, particularly, when the age of super-annuation is increased from 58 to 60 years. That aparat the petitioner belongs to S.C. community, he is entitled for relaxation of age. Further, the L.D.C.E. was not conducted for more than ten years and as such he is entitled for age relaxation atleast ten years. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the orders passed by the Tribunal. He also contended that in pursuance of the direction given by the authorities, the petitioner made a representation, but it was rejected. 9. It is seen from the record that the promotion quota of 25% is concerned, there is no age relaxation and only for 25% L.D.C. quota, the age restriction is imposed. The petitioner is claiming the post not by way of promotion, but by way of recruitment against 25% of L.D.C. In the counter, the respondent stated that there is no age relaxation in respect of employees S.C. and S.T. who wish to appear for the examination. As per the Rules, the Railway Board has fixed the age limit as 45 and as such the petitioner cannot seek direction to accept his application even though he does not satisfy the conditions prescribed in the Notification. The Railway Board in its wisdom has fixed the maximum age as 45 years, which cannot be interfered with either by the Tribunal or by this Court. Therefore, the official respondents cannot be directed to provide relaxation of age in respect of candidates belonging to a particular community as per the Rules. Thus, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the O.A. 10. The Tribunal has given cogent and convincing reasons for dismissing O.A. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal and the impugned order of the Tribunal does not call for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner, if so advised, can make a representation to the authority concerned seeking age relaxation. It is needless to mention that any observation made in this order touching upon the merits of the case does not in any way preclude the respondents from considering the representation of the petitioner for age relaxation in accordance with law. No costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED June 17, 2008 ___________________ C.V.RAMULU kvr