THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated: 16-08-2011 WRIT APPEAL No. 620 OF 2011 Between: P. Ravi Kumar ... APPELLANT AND Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, rep., by its Vice- Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and three others …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No. 620 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) The petitioner – appellant’s application for appointment against the post of Shramiks in response to notification dated 31-05-2011 issued by respondents 3 and 4 could not be entertained because of two fold reasons, one that he had crossed the upper age limit of 30 years and the other that he was not possessed of the requisite apprenticeship NTC and NAC. Having failed to satisfy the eligibility, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, consequently this writ appeal mainly on the ground that the post was not advertised for a long time. Taking note of the contention, the learned single Judge referred to Regulation 9 of the APSRTC Employees’ Recruitment Regulations, 1966 (for short ‘the Regulations’) which speaks of the power of the competent authority to relax the age in exceptional circumstances. There is no dispute that no application under the said regulation was ever made by the petitioner – appellant. Examining the matter on the touch stone of the Regulations, we find no cause to interfere because for according consideration for the appointment, eligibility is a condition precedent. Learned counsel for the petitioner – appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in U.P State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. U.P Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and others[1] to stake a claim for preference in appointment on the basis of training but difficulty for him is that the appellant does not have the requisite apprenticeship also to his credit. Apart from that, the judgment speaks of relaxation of the age in accordance with service rules relevant to the subject and the only regulation available on that count is Regulation 9 which empowers the competent authority to relax the age in case of exceptional circumstances. It goes without saying that for that the appellant had to apply to the competent authority but he chose not to. In the aforementioned backdrop, writ appeal fails and is dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 16-08-2011 K. Shyleshi [1] AIR 1995 SC 1115