1 APHC010406462012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 31251/2012 Between: M.j.h.vinay Babu, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PRAKASH BUDDARAPU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. REVANURU SUDHA RANI (SC FOR SAMAGRA SHIKSHA) 2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION 3. ELEVATED AS JUDGE The Court made the following: ORDER : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not relaxing the Upper Age Limit prescribed in the guidelines appended to the Proceedings Rc No 26/RVMSSA/B10/11 dated 28.8.2012 as relaxed in G.O.Ms.No.1 Genera Administration Ser A Department, dated 2.1.2012, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and pass…..” 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Government of India has identified Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Programme to implement the provisions of RTE Act 2009 which has been introduced to provide free and compulsory education to all the children in the age group of the schedule of the Act. The programme includes appointment of Part time instructors for Art Education, Health & Physical Education and Work Education in the Upper Primary Schools/ Upper Primary sections of High Schools with an enrollment of over 100 in Upper Primary classes (Classes 6th and 7th in Upper Primary schools and 6th to 8th in High schools). Accordingly 12271 posts (Art Education 4293, Health and Physical Education: 3226 and Work Education: 4752) have been sanctioned for the annual plan in 2012-13 with required budget. The Government of India further stipulated for the immediate filling of the above said posts with the provisions of RTE Act as per the timeline specified in the Act. It is stated that, in pursuance of the said guidelines, the 2nd respondent herein issued Proceedings Rc.No.26/RVM(SSA)/B10/11, dated 28.8.2012 informing all the District Educational Officers and Project Officers of RVM (SSA) in the State that 12271 posts of part time instructors (i.e., 4293 in Art Education, 3226 in Health & Physical Education and 4752 in Work Education were approved in AWP&B 2012-13) and with no regular posts are sanctioned by State Government requesting them to complete the process by 25.09.2012. It is further stated that the guidelines stipulated by the 2ndRespondent that no person shall be eligible for any post unless he / she is above 18 years and below 39 years of age as on 01.07.2012 However, in case of SC/ST/BC 3 candidates the maximum age limit shall be 44 years and in case of physically challenged candidates the maximum age limit shall be 49 years and the qualifications prescribed for Art Education is (i) 10th class or its equivalent examination, (ii) Diploma or a certificate in drawing commercial art, fine arts and architecture, painting, sculpture, music, dance or a certificate in higher grade drawing certificate and (iii) Technical teacher certificate of Government of Andhra Pradesh. 3. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the Respondents have not filled part time Art Education posts for the past 24 years, thereby several unemployed persons have lost opportunities and also became over-aged. Petitioners have also made representations to the authorities for filling up of the vacancies and for relaxation of the age of the aspiring candidates in filling up of the vacancies, and several newspapers have also carried out reports to the said effect.Despite the representations made to the Respondent authorities and several news items published in newspapers, the Respondents have not relaxed the age condition. However, the Petitioners have submitted their applications with a fond hope that the authorities would give age relaxation to them and to the similarly situated unemployed persons. The Petitioners have also brought to the notice of the Respondents about issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 02.01.2012 wherein the Government issued Adhoc Rule raising the upper age limit for direct recruitment to enable more unemployed youth to be eligible to compete in the recruitment process as the direct recruitment is being 4 conducted after some gap of years. The Adhoc Rule further provided that the said age relaxation shall be applicable for the notifications issued after 01.07.2011 for which, the last date of submission of applications is not yet over and also for which, the last date of submission of applications was over, but the examinations are not yet commenced as per the schedule. However, the respondents are not inclined to consider the age relaxation. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Heard Sri Prakash Budharapu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition argued that the petitioners are fulfilling all the educational qualifications prescribed for the post except the age criteria. He submits that the petitioners are waiting for several years for announcement of the filling up of the posts of Part Time Art Education. In view of the long delay in issuing notification by the authorities, the petitioners have become over aged. He further submits that in view of non-issuance of notification since 24 years , a duty is cast upon the Government to give age concession over and above the upper age limit. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has furnished a copy of written instructions received from the State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha, vide Lr.Rc No.2317807/APSS/A12/2024, dated 5 05.03.2025, and submits that the Govt. issued G.O.Ms.No.1 GAD dated 2.01.2012 for appointment by direct recruitment relaxing the upper age limit by 2years for the ensuing recruitment's through APPSC and other recruiting agencies. The age relaxation of 2 years shall be applicable for the notification issued after 01.07.2011, whereas the upper age limit fixed for part-time instructors for Art education in upper primary schools/sections as on 01.07.2012 is 39 years and in case of SC/ST/BC shall be 44 years and in case of PHCs is 49 years. Hence the question of relaxing the upper age limit again does not arise as prayed by the petitioners. 7. As per instructions, learned counsel for the respondents further submits that, the posts of part-time instructors for Art education are not borne or age governed by any service rules of the State. So, the age limit applicable for a civil service are not applicable to these posts which are purely temporary and remuneration is on honorarium basis. He submits that, in the absence of application of general rules, the employer has prerogative right to fix the upper age limit. Accordingly, the State has fixed the upper age limit as (39 years) taking into account the nature of job, functions to be performed, strain to undergo and commitment to the job. So, the upper age limit fixed is just and reasonable and not at all arbitrary. He further submits that, there is no discrimination or any other violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India or any Statutory provision or rule. Therefore, as there are no valid grounds to challenge the upper age limit prescribed in the 6 impugned proceedings dated 28.8.2012 and hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in WP No.18753 of 2011, dated 27.8.2011, wherein this Court held that the Court cannot direct the respondents to further enhance the age limit. It is always open for the appointing authority to stipulate norms. 9. Perused the material on record. 10. On a perusal of the material, it is observed that, in pursuance of the Proceedings dated 28.08.2012 issued by the 2nd Respondent, the 4th Respondent issued paper publication dated 20.09.2012 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for filling up of 66 Art Education posts and other posts in Kadapa district with the last date for submission of applications being 30.09.2012. As the petitioners herein possessed the required qualifications prescribed in the guidelines i.e,. (i) 10th class, (ii) Certificate in Drawing Higher Grade obtained from O/o the Commissioner for all the required Government. A.P. Technical Examination and (iii) Education & Training, Andhra Pradesh. However, as on 01.07.2012,(i) Petitioner 1 was about 44 years 1 month 16 days (belongs to BC-C).(ii) Petitioner 2 was about 44 years 4 months (belongs to BC-D).(iii) Petitioner 3 was about 45 years 3 months (belongs to SC-C).(iv) Petitioner 4 was about 46 years 2 months (belongs to Muslim Minority). 7 11. It is the contention of the petitioners that, despite the representations made to the Respondent authorities and several news items published in newspapers, the Respondents have not relaxed the age condition. However, the Petitioners have submitted their applications with a fond hope that the authorities would give age relaxation to them and to the similarly situated unemployed persons. 12. As per G.O.Ms.No.1, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 02.01.2012, the Government issued Adhoc Rule raising the upper age limit for direct recruitment to enable more unemployed youth to be eligible to compete in the recruitment process as the direct recruitment is being conducted after some gap of years. The Adhoc Rule provided that the said age relaxation shall be applicable for the notifications issued after 01.07.2011. it is further contended that in view of non-issuance of notification since 24 years, a duty is cast upon the Government to give age concession over and above the Upper Age Limit. 13. Moreover, the contention of the 2nd respondent is that the post of part-time instructors for Art education is purely a temporary one, it is intended to be filled on contract basis and only honorarium is to be paid. The learned counsel argued that the Petitioners claim of no recruitment for 24 years is incorrect as drawing/craft teacher posts existed in most high schools and were later filled by regular vocational instructors; D.Ed teachers who are working as regular teachers in primary and upper primary schools are knowing the child (philosophical and psychological foundation), knowing the subject (content), 8 and knowing the methodology of teaching (transaction of the curriculum) in addition to these teacher are also trained in co-curricular activities namely health, physical education, cultural education (drawing painting, music, dance, drama etc), work education which includes various crafts, computer education etc. 14. It is the further contention of the respondents that, G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 02.01.2012, which provided a 2 year upper age limit relaxation for direct recruitments through APPSC and other agencies, was applicable to notifications issued after 01.07.2011. The existing age limit for these part-time instructor posts already provides relaxations as the upper age limit fixed for part-time instructors for Art education in upper primary schools/sections as on 01.07.2012 is 39 years and in case of SC/ST/BC shall be 44 years and in case of PHCs is 49 years. Hence the question of relaxing the upper age limit again does not arise as prayed by the petitioners. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion and as held by a learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in WP No.18753 of 2011, that the Court cannot direct the respondents to further enhance the age limit, it is always open for the appointing authority to stipulate norms, the age of petitioners cannot be enhanced as per the rules. 16. Therefore , this Court found no merit in the instant writ petition and devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : -04-2025 Gvl 10 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITON No.35281 of 2022 Date : .04.04.2025 Gvl