IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.8874 OF 2011 Date:11-04-2011 Between:- N.Jayaram and another .. Petitioners And The APCPDCL, rep.by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing APCPDCL Notification No.27/2010-LDC-Cum-Computer Operator, dated 08.03.2011, by prescribing the maximum age as 39 years with five years relaxation for SC/ST without extending any relaxation in favour of the contract labour, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners for selection to the said posts by extending age relaxation in their favour on the basis of their experience as contract labour. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they have been working as contract labourers for the last 15 and 14 years respectively; that the present notification is issued to fill up the backlog vacancies of LDC- cum-Computer Operator prescribing the maximum age limit as 39 years as on 31-12-2010 and they have been made ill-eligible as they have crossed 39 years. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the second petitioner comes within the requisite qualifications even with regard to the age prescribed in the notification, he is eligible but the same has not been considered by the respondents. 4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the age has been prescribed in the notification for general candidates as 39 years and the upper age limit will be relaxed upto five years in respect of physically handicapped candidates belonging to SC/ST communities as on the date of notification i.e., 31-12-2010. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners belong to the category of Schedule Caste. If they come within the age as prescribed in the notification, they can be said to be eligible. The first petitioner is shown as 48 years. Therefore, he is not eligible to make an application for the post notified by the respondents. Insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, he claims to be aged about 43 years. Therefore, if he comes below the age of 44 years as on 31.12.2010, his application has to be received by the competent authority and has to be processed according to law. 6. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed insofar as the prayer of the first petitioner is concerned. Insofar as second petitioner is concerned, the respondents have to take a decision to accept or reject the application basing upon his date of birth. If he comes within the prescribed age of 44 years and is physically handicapped, his application has to be processed. The respondents are directed to receive the application of the second petitioner, as the application is said to have not been received in view of the pendency of the writ petition. Thereafter, the application of second petitioner has to be considered in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed in the notification, dated 08.03.2011. It is needless to observe that if second petitioner does not fulfill the requisite qualifications, his application needs to be rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 11th April, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.8874 OF 2011 Date:11-04-2011 AMD