IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25078 of 2000 Between: T.Ganapathi Rao S/o. Suryanarayana R/o. Gottamangalapuram Village, Palakonda Mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. Transco Rep by its Addl. Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, A.P.Transco, Operation Circle, A.P.E.P.D.C.L Srikakulam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondents:MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in considering the petitioner’s case for the post of Lower Division Clerk or Revenue Cashier as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for invalidation of letter, dated 20.07.2000 whereby his case for absorption was rejected on the ground that he was under-aged at the time of his first engagement as contract labourer. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The petitioner, who staked his claim for absorption into the services of the respondents in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 was unsuccessful as his claim was rejected by the impugned letter issued by respondent No.2 on the ground that he was under-aged at the time of his first engagement. The fact that the petitioner was only 17 years and 6 months was admitted in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed by him. The Full Bench of this Court by it’s order, dated 16.10.2000 passed in Writ Appeal No.1222 of 1999 and batch held that being under- aged did not cause disqualification to the contract/casual labourers for being absorbed on regular basis. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents placed before this Court order, dated 18.04.2002 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3215 of 2002 wherein the said order of the Full Bench was reversed and it was held that as per the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board’s Regulations, a candidate should have completed 18 years of age and that there shall be no relaxation of age. The Supreme Court further held that benefit of regularisation which was conferred on the employees solely depended upon eligibility conditions including the age limit prescribed under the statutory regulations and that in view of prohibition contained in the statutory regulation of relaxation of age, a candidate does not have right to seek absorption even where the employer has committed mistake in engaging him though he was under-aged. In view of the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court as above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd JANUARY, 2009. kvni