C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

1. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in issuing notification, dated 28.01.2016, for the post of Stenographer Grade III under Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Services in the unit of District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, without giving age relaxation to the eligible employees working in Fast Track Courts on contract basis as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 502.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Stenographer on contract basis in the V Additional District Judge’s Court (Fast Track Court), Eluru, West Godavari District, on 23.07.2013. Respondent No.3, by the impugned notification, called for applications for the post of Stenographer Grade III under the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Services in his unit. Out of the seven vacancies notified by respondent No.3, one post is reserved for O.C. women, to which category, the petitioner belongs. As per the said notification, a candidate must have completed 18 years of age and must have not completed 34 years of age as on 01.07.2016 and in respect of BCs, SCs and STs, PHs and Ex-Servicemen, age relaxation is provided. The petitioner has completed 36 years and 10 months as on 01.07.2016 and therefore, she was not eligible to apply for the post. Hence, she has filed this writ petition for the above noted relief.

3. We have heard Mr.B.Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Law and Justice (AP) appearing for respondent No.1 and learned standing counsel for the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh appearing for respondent No.2.

4. It is not in dispute that the upper age limit for selection and appointment to the post of Stenographer Grade III under the impugned notification issued under the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Services Rules is 34 years in case of OC candidates and the petitioner is admittedly age barred. The only basis on which, the petitioner claimed relief is a Division Bench order of this Court in G.Yadagiri and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Law Department, Hyderabad and others (Dated 30.01.2014, in W.P.No.9375 of 2013).

5. We have carefully read the aforesaid Division Bench order. The petitioners in the said writ petition, who are Fast Track Court employees appointed on contractual basis, filed that writ petition seeking relief of their absorption and regularization on par with the Fast Track Court Judges, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Lal (1 supra). In the context of the said relief, the Division Bench started the order with the following observations:

“We are just amazed to see to what extent a citizen can assert his so called right of justice. We think that there must be some limit. Therefore, we culled out the real grievance of the petitioners instead of sailing with them in their utopian idea. The petitioners have rendered services, of course, on contractual basis in the Fast Track Courts for a good number of years. Now, the respondents are proposing to recruit the persons like the petitioners in the regular District Courts. First of all, it has to be observed that neither of the petitioners has any subsisting legal right for enforcement of the same. While rendering services in Fast Track Courts, they cannot claim any equity to be brought for getting any benefit in the matter of getting any recruitment in the other Courts.”

(Emphasis added)

Having made those observations, the Division Bench rejected the relief claimed in the said writ petition for absorption and regularization. It, however, directed that the respondents therein, who evidently included the State of Andhra Pradesh and the High Court, may consider the cases of the petitioners therein along with other eligible candidates “condoning the age ba