K VENKATESWARLU Vs. APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') issued a notification, dated 01.11.2010, proposing to recruit as many as 3623 Shramiks in different regions and about 400 Shramiks in non-operating units. The upper age limit prescribed for the post, is 30 years as on 01.07.2010 with relaxation up to 5 years in favour of S.C., ST. and B.C. candidates. For the posts that are earmarked for Printing Press, the age limit is 25 years as on the same date, with similar relaxation. The qualification prescribed for the post is I.T.I. in Diesel Mechanic Trade for the post in depots/regions and workshops, and I.T.I in Binding or Mechanic Trade for the post in the Printing Press. Similar notification was issued on 17.11.2004 for the post of Motor Mechanics/Artisans. The age limit is the same for the posts but the educational qualifications are a bit different.

(2.) The Petitioners are all I.T.I. candidates, who have undergone apprenticeship training in various depots or workshops of the Corporation, several years ago. They have crossed the age limit stipulated under the notification. They claim that they are entitled to the benefit of relaxation of age limit on two grounds viz., that they have undergone apprenticeship training mainly and that the Corporation did not undertake any recruitment ever since the year 2000. The Petitioners further submit that on its own accord, the Corporation provided for relaxation of age limit to the extent of four years in favour of the candidates, who have undergone apprenticeship training with them on an earlier occasion. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh, 1995 AIR(SC) 1115.

(3.) The Corporation filed a detailed counter-affidavit opposing the writ petitions. It is stated that the age limit was stipulated strictly in accordance with the relevant Regulations and there is neither any basis nor any warrant for relaxation of the age limit. It is urged that the Petitioners do not have any right to insist on the relaxation of age limit. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Respondents contend that the maximum that the Petitioners can claim under it, is the benefit of relaxation to the extent of the period of apprenticeship training undergone by them, with the Corporation.