WP/7162/1998 of A.S.V.Subba Rao, Vs The Chairman ,APSEB, on 28 December 2007

Conclusion

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANARAO

WRIT PETITION NO :7162 of 1998

thDated: 28 December 2007.

Between:

Akella Satya Venkata Subba Rao, S/o Parvatheesam,Aged 44 years, Hindu, Ex-Casual Labour in APSEB, R/oD.No.65-3-3/A, Dwaraka Nagar, Kakinada, E.G. District –533 023.

AND

..... PETITIONER

The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, a statutorycorporation being represented by its Chairman andanother.

.....RESPONDENTS

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANARAO

None appears for the petitioner though the matterhas been adjourned even on the last occasion.

The writ petitioner, who appears to have worked asa Casual Labour with the former A.P.S.E.B. (henceforthreferred to as ‘the Board’) in its Operation Division atKakinada, for a total period of 170 days between 1[st] July1980 to 24[th] May 1981, seeks a direction to therespondents to relax the upper age limit fixed for directrecruitment by 10 days.

The petitioner produced his Secondary SchoolCertificate, wherein his date of birth has been noted as12[th] June 1954. The Board had taken a decision toregularize the former casual labourers, who have workedfor certain number of days in any of itsestablishments/offices. Since, the petitioner possessesthe necessary educational qualifications and he has alsoput in the required number of man-days for gettingappointed against the vacant posts in the regularestablishment, pursuant to the one time decision andexercise carried out, the case of the petitioner has comeup for consideration, but however, the respondents hadpointed out that in terms of the recruitment Rules and inparticular, Rule 5-A, wherein it has been mentioned thatno person shall be eligible for appointment by direct recruitment to any category if he has completed 25 yearsof age on the date of appointment, was coming in the wayof regularizing the services of the petitioner. The Board’sRegulations have also specifically pointed out that thereshall be no relaxation of upper age limit granted, for thesake of direct recruitment.

When somewhat a similar question had fallen forconsideration before the Supreme Court in Civil AppealNo.3215 of 2002, by its Judgment dated 18[th] April 2002,the Supreme Court resolved the same as under:

“ In our view, in the petitions beforethe High Court there was no questionof considering public policy and thediscussion on the law was totallybesides the point involved in thematter. Limited issue was – whetherbefore regularization of service ofemployees, the Board was bound tofollow the eligibility conditions laiddown in its proceedings dated18.5.1997 and 31.12.1997. Benefit ofregularization which was conferred onthe employees solely depended uponeligibility of conditions including theage limit prescribed under thestatutory regulations. The statutoryregulations provide that there shall beno relaxation of age. In cases, wherethe Board has committed mistake inengaging under-age or over-agecasual employees or has permittedthe contractor to do so would notconfer any right on such employeesfor being regularized on the basis ofBPMS dated 18.5.1997.”

In view of this judgment, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, buthowever, in the circumstances, without costs.

28[th] December 2007mrk

--------------------------------Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J