ORDER : M.B. Shah, Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, H.K. Sema, JJ. Leave granted. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 16-10-2000, passed by the High Court of A.P. in A. Pratap Singh v. A.P. SEB, (2000) 6 ALD 689 : (2001) 3 SLR 499, the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and others have preferred these appeals. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in N. Chandramouli v. A.P. SEB, WP No. 6089 OF 1998, decided on 9-7-1999(AP), and arrived at the conclusion that the respondent casual employees/employees of the contractor/junior linemen were entitled to be regularised in service in terms of the Board proceedings - BPMS No. 36 dated 18-5-1997. 2. The limited question which was required to be considered was with regard to the condition laid down in the aforesaid Board proceedings which, inter alia, provides that for regularisation of service the age of the candidates shall be reckoned as per the Board's service regulations in force at the time of their first engagement and there shall be no relaxation of age. 3. In view of the aforesaid Board proceedings as well as the circulars, it was incumbent upon the Board to consider the age of the candidate at the time of his first engagement. Admittedly, in the present case all the employees were underage at the relevant time, except two employees who were overage. The Board's regulation provides the age-limit as under: "(a) Age. - Age shall be reckoned as per the Board's service regulations in force at the time of their first engagement. There shall be no relaxation of age. The Board Regulation 16(l)(e) provides as under: "Age. - (i) Technical personnel or non-technical personnel who have, on or before the first day of the month in which selection is held, completed 30 or 25 years of age respectively shall not be eligible for direct recruitment. Minors i.e. candidates who have not completed 18 years of age also shall not be eligible for direct recruitment." 4. - (i) Technical personnel or non-technical personnel who have, on or before the first day of the month in which selection is held, completed 30 or 25 years of age respectively shall not be eligible for direct recruitment. Minors i.e. candidates who have not completed 18 years of age also shall not be eligible for direct recruitment." 4. Despite the fact that on the date of the first engagement the respondent casual employees/employees of the contractor/junior linemen were not eligible for appointment on the ground of being underage or overage, the Division Bench of the High Court arrived at the conclusion that there was no violation of the public policy or any irregularity occurred at the time of initial appointment or entry into service, which disentitles the consideration of the appellants for regularisation. Secondly, the alleged irregularity in the initial appointment having been waived by the Board, it does not confer a right on the Board to deny the just due to the employees. Thirdly, the violation of a public policy and the irregularity committed has to be judged in the facts and circumstances of each case. No strict proposition as such can be laid down. 5. In our view, in the petitions before the High Court there was no question of considering public policy and the discussion on the law was totally besides the point involved in the matter. The limited issue was whether before regularisation of service of employees, the Board was bound to follow the eligibility conditions laid down in its proceedings dated 18-5-1997 and 31-12-1997. Benefit of regularisation which was conferred on the employees solely depended upon eligibility of conditions including the age-limit prescribed under the statutory regulations. The statutory regulations provide that there shall be no relaxation of age. In cases, where the Board has committed mistake in engaging underage or overage casual employees or has permitted the contractor to do so would not confer any right on such employees for being regularised on the basis of BPMS dated 18-5-1997. 6. In this view of the matter, the judgment rendered by the High Court cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside. 7. 6. In this view of the matter, the judgment rendered by the High Court cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside. 7. However, considering the fact that the respondent casual employees/employees of the contractor/junior linemen are in service for more that 15 years, we do not think that this would be a fit case for disturbing their appointments made in pursuance of the order passed by the High Court. Ordered accordingly. Appeals stand disposed of.