(1) The petitioner was temporarily employed as hindi pandit in s. A. High school. Bellampally run by singareni colleries ltd. , (herein referred to as the 'company') in the year1983. She worked from 6 - 12 - 1983 to 18 - 4 - 1987, 16 - 8 - 1984 to 31 - 3 - 1985 and from 15 - 10 - 1987 to 14 - 12 - 1987. She again worked at kalyanikhani school from august, 1990 to december, 1990 with breaks. In may, 1990,the company advertised for the post of hindi pandits after notifying the employment exchange to sponsor candidates. Complaining that the employment exchange has not sponsored her name,the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking regular absorption as hindi pandit and also challenging the action of the company in considering only persons sponsored by the employment exchange.
(2) The company has filed counter stating that thepetitionerisnot entitiedto be absorbed as regular employee as her appointment is onlytemporary againstthe leave vacancies, that shehasnot worked continuously in any academic year for 240 days, that she did not work in the academic years 1985 - 86, 1988 - 89 and 1989 - 90 and that she cannot be considered unless her name is sponsored by the employment exchange.
(3) The district employment officer filed counter stating that as the qualifying upper age limit prescribed by the company is 34 years as on 31 - 8 - 1990 and as the petitioner was born on 15 - 12 - 1954, shewasnot qualified and was not accordingly sponsored by the employmentexchange. The leamedcounsel for the petitioner mr. D. Lingarao contended (1) that as the petitioner has worked continuously from 1983 to 1990 with breaks, deliberately created by the management, the petitioneris entitled tobe absorbed; arid (2) that the a. P. Educational institutions (establishment, recognition, administration and control of schools) rules, 1988 (herein after referred to as 'rules') framed under g. O. Ms. No. 524 dated 20 - 12 - 1988 do not prescribe any maximum age limit for recruitment of teachers inprivate educational institutions.
(4) Both the contentions are without substance. As seen from the counter the petitioner was appointed temporarily from time to time againstleave vacancies anditis not a case where her services were terminated just before the vacation every year. The petitioner didnot work in the academicyears 1985 - 86,1986 - 87,1988 - 89 and 1989 - 90 and she has never worked for 240 days continuously in any year. No provision of law was shown by the counsel for the petitioner in support of his 1st contention, which is accordingly rejected.
(5) As regards the second contention, the stand of the comp any is that eventhough the rules donotprescribe any upper age limitfor recruitment, it is open to the educational institutions to prescribe particular age limit and prescription of such qualification cannot be challenged. Mr. Ravichander, the learned counsel for the company appearing for mr. K. Srinivasa murthy relied on j. Ranga swamyv. Government ofa. P. (1}asl 1990 sc 535,where in it washeldby the supreme court that the courts cannot adjudicate upon the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications fixed for the employment by the employers. The company has written to the employment exchange to sponsor candidates and gave the age qualification as not crossing 34 years as on 31 - 8 - 1990 relaxableas per the government rules. It is admitted that the petitioner doesnot belong to any reserved category. Mr. Lingarao relied on govemment memono. 1401 dated 15 - 1 - 1989 prescribing age limit of 36 years. But this is applicable to only teachers appointed in schools run by zilla praja parishad, mandal praja parishad and government. In writ petitionno. 14458/94 dated 6 - 12 - 1994, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the a. P. Educational institutions (establishment, recognition, administration and control of schools under private managements) rules, 1993 issued under g. O. Ms. No. 1, education, dated 1 - 1 - 1994 fell for consideration. Rule - 10, sub - rule 13 says that educational agencies shall not appoint a person who has crossed the prescribed age limit. It was contended by the learned government pleader in mat case that in the case of appointments by private managements, the upper age limitis 36 years, though there is no such rule to that effect. In those circumstances, sri parvatha rao, j. , held that thereisno upper agelimit prescribed for appointment of teachers in private aided schools and hence the petitioner therein who has crossed 36 years of age cannot be held tobe disqualified to apply for the post. This decision is distinguishable since from the facts stated in the judgment, itisnot known whether the school management has prescribed any agelimitfor recruitment. Itis also conceded therein by the learned government pleader that in respect of recruitment of the teachers in private aided managements, upper age limit is 36 years and for s. C. , s. T. , and b. C. ,categories, the upper age limit is 41 years. Further there is no rule in 1983 rules similar to rule 10 (13) of 1993 rules which fell for consideration.
(6) In that case, the question whether private managements can prescribe age limit in the absence of any age limit prescribed by the government was neither raised nor decided in that case. Thus, this decision is not of assistance to the petitioner. Similarly reliance made on circular rc. No. 1448/tg. V - 2/88 dated 2 - 6 - 1988 stating that there is no upper age limit in appointing teachers in aided, secondary and elementary schools, does not help the petitioner sinceitdoesnotpreventtheprivate institutions from imposing any upper age limit.
(7) In view of the above i hold that there is no illegality in the employment exchange not sponsoring the name of the petitioner on the ground that she is over - aged. The writ petition accordingly fails. No costs.