IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 2867 of 2007 Between: 1 V. Lavakusha Reddy, S/o. Ranga Reddy, 33/11 KV, Munagala, Nalgonda District. 2 D. Venkateshwarlyu, S/o. Ramulu,. Sub Station Nadigudem, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Centeral Power Distribution Company of Andhra pradesh Limited, REp. by its Managing Director, Red HIlls, Hyderabad-4. 2 Centeral Power Distribution Company of Andhra pradesh Limited, REp. by its Chief General Manager. Red Hills, Hyderabad-4. 3 Centeral Power Distribution Company of Andhra pradesh Limited, REp. by its Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Nalgonda. .....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 call for the records from the respondents andissue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly oone in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring that the action of respondents innot considering the cases of Petitioner by relaxing the age limit for the postof Junior Lineman as illegal,unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, discrimiatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and grant all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstancesof thecase. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is squarely covered by the common order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8259 of 2007 and batch dated 7.12.2007, therefore this writ petition is also liable to be disposed of in terms of the above order. However, the learned counsel appearing for respondents Sri P.Balarama Reddy states that insofar as first petitioner is concerned, though he appeared for interview, his case was not considered on the ground that he is over-aged. Insofar as second petitioner is concerned, he did not even attend for interview, therefore, considering his case does not arise. I am of the opinion that even if the second petitioner had attended the interview, his case also would have met with the same fate as that of first petitioner. Under those circumstances, following the order passed in W.P.No.8259 of 2007 and batch dated 7.12.2007, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider for granting relaxation of age, for the purpose of reckoning upper age limit to the extent of period of service rendered by the petitioners in the organization and they shall be appointed as Contract Junior Lineman, if they satisfy the other criteria, either in the existing or future vacancies (as soon as the one year period of contract as per the notifications is elapsed). Further, it is made clear that except the age relaxation, petitioners are not entitled for any other concessions. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 10.3.2008 DA