THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 18497 of 2010 O R D E R: Heard Ms. T.K. Anuradha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri S. Venkteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. The respondent-Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) has proposed to make recruitment to the posts of Typists. As is required of them, they have also proposed to extend the principles of reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes apart from throwing open some of the vacancies for open competition. The writ petitioner has crossed the maximum age limit of 34 years. The case of the writ petitioner is that the vacancies of Typists which have actually arisen in the year 2008 are now sought to be filled up. If only the respondent – TTD has taken steps promptly to fill up these vacancies in the year 2008, the writ petitioner would not have crossed the upper age limit and hence, she would have become eligible to compete for the said post. Because of the delay on the part of the TTD to fill up a vacancy, the writ petitioner has lost her opportunity to compete against a post in public employment and hence, it is contended that the fundamental rights guaranteed to her under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India are violated. It is also contended that the State Government, when it makes recruitment to its services, been consistently granting relaxation in the upper age limit by equitable number of years, to cover the delay in the process of recruitment and a similar approach should have been adopted by the respondent-TTD. I am afraid, both the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner are merit less, for, if the employer has decided to fill up a particular vacancy after a couple of years time, after the vacancy arose, it does not enure any guaranteed right to a citizen to compete against the same by seeking to roll back the essential criteria to the date or the year in which the vacancy has arisen. When once a cut off date has been notified, so long as the same is not arbitrary or artificial, the criteria liable to be possessed by the candidates must be judged by the said cut off date. It cannot be made elastic and dependent upon the year in which the vacancy can be said to have arisen. Therefore, I find no illegality, much less breach of any fundamental rights of the writ petitioner in the respondent-TTD not entertaining the application of the writ petitioner for recruitment to the post of Typists, on the ground that she has already crossed the maximum permissible upper age. If the State Government adopts a particular policy, for the purpose of mitigating the hardship that is likely to be visited or caused to the citizens, such a policy measure would be available to the extent the same is render applicable. Conditions of service can vary from service to service and similarly from organization to organization. There can be peculiarities of requirements of the service concerned. It is, therefore, incomparable that whatever requirements are prescribed for recruitment to Government services, must necessarily and invariably be made applicable to the service in the TTD as well. In the absence of any such enforceable provision of law, every policy measure adopted by the State Government does not automatically become applicable, to regulate the conditions of services of the employees of the TTD, as it will not be possible for extending automatically such decisions of the State Government. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and it is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 30th July 2010 Note: Issue CC tomorrow. ksld