IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 24302 of 2006 Between: 1 M. Madhusudhana Rao S/o Chinnaiah M. r/o D. No. 9-170, Nabikota, R.V. Nagarpost, Kadapa, Kadapa District 2 S. Siva Narayana Reddy S/o S. Sambasiva Reddy R/o Plot No. 29, Vidyut Nagar, Ananthapur, Ananthapur district. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary, General Administration Department, Secretariat, hyderabad. 2 The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, repbyits Secretary, Gruhakalpa Buildings, Nampally Station Road, 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 issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for selection for the post of Excise Sub Inspector Advertised under ADv. No. 10/99 and which are now being released as per the orders of Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. no. 3067/2004 and batch dt 21-10-2005 on par with other eligible and qualified by extending the benefit of Upper age relaxation as ordered by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 8026 and 8058 of 2003 dated 11-12-2003 & 16-12-2003 and to accord all consequential benefits of appointment service, seniority etc as per law by setting aside the orders of Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 6570/2003 dt 27-4-2006 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.R.V.MALLIKARJUNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.24302 OF 2006 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 27-4-2006 passed in OA No.6570 of 2003 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 3. The above said OA was filed by the writ petitioners herein aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not allowing them to participate and compete for the post of Excise Sub Inspectors on the ground that they have crossed the maximum age of 28 years pursuant to the notification no.10 of 1999 as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to participate and compete for the post of Excise Sub Inspectors without insisting maximum age limit of 28 years etc. By the impugned order, the said OA was dismissed by following the order dated 24-2-2005 passed in WP No.34306 of 1998 and batch by this Court. The operative portion of order dated 24-2-2005 passed in WP No.34306 of 1998 reads thus: “Fixing the age is the prerogative of the Government keeping in view the constitutional mandate. Though the upper age has been prescribed as 25, but the relaxation was made in respect of the SC, ST, BC and other categories including in service police personnel. Whenever, the age is relaxed by the Government, in respect of the posts to be filled up by the direct recruitment under the AP State and Subordinate Services Rules, can it be said that it also applied to the police service. In order to get out of the provisions of the General Rules, Special Rules have been framed by the Police Department for recruitment to various posts keeping in view the nature of the duties performed by the Police force, the rules as prescribed in the special rules will prevail over the general rules. Even under Rule 12 (k) of pre-1996 General Rules, the upper age limit prescribed in the general rules are not made applicable to the AP Police State and Subordinate Service and Special Armed Service Rules. In 1996 General Rules the special rules were given over riding effect in case of conflict. Prescribing the age limits is the function of the Government and they cannot be said to be justiciable. It is for the recruitment authorities to fix the age and not for the Courts to decide the reasonableness of the age fixed by the authorities unless such fixation of age is arbitrary offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Government advise did not make applicable the relaxation of age in respect of the posts in the Police force and other similarly situate departments, where the physical standards have been prescribed and going into the validity of such age fixation cannot be said to be within the purview of the Tribunal or the Courts exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.” 3. This Court in the above said WP No.34306 of 1998, by order dated 24-2-2005 observed that relaxation of age or prescribing the age limits is the function of the Government. Under those circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the relief sought by the petitioners. However, it is open for the petitioners to make a representation before the respondents and on such a representation being filed, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of representation from the petitioners. 4. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ C.V. Ramulu, J Dated:23rd June, 2008 Nrg. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}