The High Court · 2025

petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondenr: No' 1 herein to arow the petitioner to appry and appear for the examination incruding the interview to be conducted for the posts of court Masters/ personar secretaries (category 6 0f Division - r (Gazetted)), in terms of G.O.Ms.No.42, date,J 19.O3.2022 and G.O.Ms.No.30, dated. 08.02.2024, pursuant to the Notification No.101/2025, dated. 02.o1 .2025, pending finar disposal of the Writ p€)tition. Counset for the petitioner: SRI V.RAMAKRTSHNA REDDY counset for the Respondlt.!-g,r, sRiHririEti;En cou.NSEL FoR sRr A.NARE| nuoii, ii.iix rsxc counser for the Respondent Nos.2 c s, GF i;i .ENERAL ADMtNrsrRATloN The Court made the following: ORDER "ens,rno, sENtoR THE HONOT]RABLB SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSTNG RAO NANDIKONDA W.P.N0.2370 0F 2025 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. V.Ramakrishna Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harender Pershad, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. A.Naren Rundra, leamed Standing Counsel for the High Court. Perused the record. 2- The instant is a writ petition which has been filed seeking for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the recruitment process initiated vide notification dated 02.01.2025 for appearing to the posts of Court Masters/Personal Secretaries to the Hon,ble High Court Judges and Registrars in the service of the High Court for the State of Telangana.

3. The challenge to the said notif,rcation is only so far as the upper age limit fixed by the respondents wherein the upper age limit is reflected as 34 Years. 2

4. According to the petitioner, the service conditions goveming the field is the Serwice Rules of the High Courl for the State of Telangana, 2019 (for short, 'the Rules'). According to the petitioner, Ctause 7(c) of the said Rules categorically states that so far as upper age limit is concemed, the same age limit u,ould be that which is prescribed by the State Governmenr from time to time in the State antl Subordinate Service Rules for direct recruitrnent

5. It has been further pointed out by the leamed counsel for the petitioner thar the Govemment vide G.O.Ms.No.42, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 19.03.2022 has relaxed the upper age limit from 34 years to 44 years which was initialty applic;rble for a period of two years and subsequently the same has sincr: been further extended for another period of two years vide G.tl.Ms.No.30, General Administration (Serv ices-A) Department, dated 08.02.2024. As such, the upper age limit for participating in these recruitments, for all practical proposes, has to be treated as 4,4 years, instead of34 years. Another aspecr which has been brought to the notice of the Bench is the fact rhat on earlier occasiorLs also when similar notifications were issued by the 3 respondent/High Court, the petitioner herself had filed another writ petition where she was granted an interim protection permitting her to participate in the recruitment process pursuant to the relaxation so far as the upper age limit granted by the State Govemment is concemed. She, thus, prayed for a similar relief through the present writ petition as well.

6. The leamed Senior Counsel appearing under the instructions along with Mr. A.Naren Rundra, leamed Standing Counsel for the High Court, does not dispute the fact that Rule 7(c) of the Rules categorically prescribes the upper age limit to be that which would be prescribed by the State Govemment from time to time and therefore, the G.Os those have been issued in relaxing the upper age limit from time to time shall also be applicable so far as the respondent/High Court is concemed.

7. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking into consideration Rule 7(c) of the Rules governing the respondent establishment, particularly in respect of the recruitment process that has been initiated, we are of the considered opinion that the grievance raised by the petitioner seems .,isi+ ';:rFa;,. 4 to be a genuine grievance and that for all practical purposes, taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 7(c), the upper age limit for parlicipating in the recruitment process has to be accepted to be 44 years, instead of 34 years in terms of the aforesaid two Govemment Orders dated lg -03.2022 and 08.02'2024 mentioned in the preceding paragraPhs.

8. In view of the same, we do find any good reason for admitting the writ petition and keeping it pending with an interim direction, r'ather we are of the firm view that the ends of justice would meet if the writ petition itself is allowed at the adrnission stage and rtisposed of holding that in terms of Rule 7(c ), the upper age limit for participation in the said recruitment process has to be accepted tc, be 44 years, instead of 34 years. g. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. Considering the fact that there could be other such similarly placed applicants also, we leave it open for the respondenl,{ligh Court to consider extending the last date (in the light of th,: judgment of this Bench so far as enhancement of the age from .)4 years to 44 years is concemed) for filling up of the -t ..-..f.11 5 application forms, so that in case there is any other candidate who still want to apply can apply for the same so as to avoid further litigations, ifany. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE coPY// SD/- A. PRATTTIMA ASSISTANT REGIgtRAR sEcnoN(FFtcER Hvderabad. '1 . The Registrar (Recruitment), High Court for the State of Telangana' At 2. i# ChLf Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana' 5. iii6 Fii"iiprr Se;r,rtrrv,-6;eiai Administration (Services-A) Department' Secretariat. Hyderabad. il; 6c 6's #rV neMnrnt s H NA RE DDY, Advoqa!9 !oP-V cl 5;; 6c io siiiA.tlAnru RUDRA, sc FoR rsHC [oPUc] Two CD Copies To 4 5 6 PSK. BN I HIGH COURT DATED:30101t2025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.2370 of 2O2S "t frE sLi 3B ( i I \,.n\ ':t. \\. ,r \ 3 U JAil 2025 ," " _-:_j-:=-;_ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \