WP/12349/2004 of V.Narayana Swamy Reddy Vs B. Laxminarayana on 28 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY

And

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

WRIT PETITION NO.12348 of 2004

AND

WRIT PETITION NO : 12349 of 2004

WRIT PETITION NO.12348 of 2004

Between:

1 V. Narayana Swamy Reddy, S/o. Late Thippa Reddy, Inspector of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool District. Inspector of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool District.

2 A. Ramachandra, S/o. A.P. Dastagirappa, Inspector of Police, C.I.D. Hyderabad.

3 D. Ramanjaneyulu, S/o. Venkataramana,

Inspector of Police, Anantapur.

4 B. Narasappa, S/o. B. Lakshmaiah, Inspector of Police, C.I.D. Hyderabad. Inspector of Police, C.I.D. Hyderabad.

AND

..... PETITIONERS

1 J. Srinivasulu, S/o. J.V. Chelamaiah,

Inspector of Police, Tirumala, Chittoor District.

2 B.R. Srinivasulu, S/o. B.R. Obulesu,

Inspector of Police, Kadapa.

3 C. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy,

Inspector of Police, Faction Zone, Kurnool Range 4 S. Madhubushan, Inspector of Police, Kondapuram Circle, Kadapa District.

5 K.V. Raghava Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, Inspector of Police, A.P. Transco, Kurnool.

6 M. Siva Rami Reddy, S/o. Late M. Subramanyam Reddy, Inspector of Police, Hindupur 1 Town, Anantapru District.

7 Ch. Ravi Kumar, S/o. Late Ch. George,

Inspector of Police, Dharmavaram (Rural), Anantapur.

8 M. Lakshmi Naidu, S/o. M. Narayanappa, Inspector of Police, ACB, Anantapur Range, Anantapur.

9 The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad.

10 The Government of A.P. Rep by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

11 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool.

12 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature ofWrit of CERTIRIORI and to call for records relating to and connected with order ofHon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated14-5-2004 passed in OA No.2928 of 2004 and batch and quash or set aside the same and to further direct theofficial respondents to maintain the cadre strength of Sub-Inspectors of 1989 batchwithin the sanctioned strength with all consequential benefits.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.NAVEEN RAOCounsel for the Respondent Nos.9 to 12: GP FOR SERVICES ICounsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 8: Mr.MANOHAR REDDYMALLASANI.

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None appeared.

WRIT PETITION NO : 12349 of 2004

Between:

1 V.Narayana Swamy Reddy S/o. Late Thippa Reddy, Inspector of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool District.

2 A. Ramachandra S/o. A.P. Dastagirappa, Inspector of Police, C.I.D, Hyderabad.

3 D. Ramanjaneyulu S/.o. Venkataramana

Inspector of Police, Anantapur.

4 B. Narasappa S/o. B. Lakshmaiah

Inspector of Police, C.I.D. Hyderabad.

AND

..... PETITIONERS

1 B. Laxminarayana S/o. Somaiah, Inspector of Police, O/o. Director General of Police, Hyderabad.

2 Ch. Laxmipathi, S/o. Suryanarayana, Sub-Inspector of Police, Through the O/o. Director General of Police, Hyderabad.

3 S. Babu Rao S/o. Raju, Sub-Inspector of Police, Through the O/o. Director General of Police, Hyderabad.

4 N. Vijaya Prasad, S/o. Asiraiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, Through the O/o. Director General of Police, Hyderabad.

5 T. Sarkar S/o. T. Abdul Rahman, Inspector of Police, Madanapalli Rural Circle, Chittoor District.

6 K. Rajendra Prasad, S/o. Sreeramulu, Inspector of Police,

Government Railway Police, Secunderabad.

7 P. Ramakrishnaiah S/o. Narayanaswamy, Circle Inspector of Police, Atmakur Circle, Kurnool District.

8 D. Amarnatha Naidu, S/o. Venunatha Naidu, Circle Inspector of Police, Kurnool Range , Kurnool District.

9 T.S. Venkataramana, S/o. Chetti, Circle Inspector of Police, Kadiri Rural, Anantapur District.

10 K. Eswar Reddy S/o. Eeshwar Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police, Nagari Circle, Chittoor District.

11 P.Venkatanath Reddy S/o. Subba Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police, Panyam Circle, Kurnool District.

12 L.K.Krishnan, S/o. Subban,. Assistant Vigilance and Security Officer, T.T.D. Tirupati, Chittoor District.

13 P.N. Babu S/o. Naganna, Circle Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District.

14 S.K. Chandra Sekhar S/o. Malleshappa, Sub-Inspector of Police, Through the O/o. Director General of Police, Hyderabad.

15 G. Ramanjaneylu, S/o. Subba Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Through the O/o. Director General of Police, Hyderabad.

16 Shaik Lal Ahmed S/o. Shaik Fareed, Sub-Inspector of Police, Through the O/o. Director General of Police, Hyderabad.

17 D. Gangadharam S/o. Veeraiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, Through the O/o. Director General of Police, Hyderabad.

18 The Government of A.P., represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

19 The Director General and Inspector General of Police, A.P., Saifabad, Hyderabad.

20 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature ofWrit of Certiorari and to call for records relating to and connected with judgment ofHon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal dt. 20.11.2001 rendered in OA No. 6915 of1994 and quash or set aside the same and also declare the government Memo No.42833/Police-C1/2001-1, Home ( Police-C) Dept. and 11.3.2002 and the Head ofthe Department orders in C.O. Memo NO. 855/E1/2002 dt. 18.6.2002 as illegal,arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of provisions of A.P., Public Employment (Organization of local cadres and regulation of direct recruitment) order 1975 and tofurther direct the official respondents to regulate the cadre of Sub-Inspectors inZone-IV within the sanctioned cadre strength for the 1989 batch with allconsequential benefits.

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.NAVEEN RAO

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.18 to 20: GP FOR SERVICES-I

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 12 and 14: MR.NOOTY RAM MOHANRAO.

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.13, 15 to 17: None appeared.

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER: (per PSN.J.)

V.Narayana Swamy Reddy and others filed Writ Petition No.12348 of 2004questioning the interim order dated 5.5.2004 as extended by order dated14.5.2004 passed by A.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short Tribunal) inO.A.Nos.2928 of 2004 and batch. The said writ petitioners also filed WritPetition No.12349 of 2004 praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for recordsrelating to and connected with judgment of the Tribunal dated 20.11.2001rendered in OA.No.6915 of 1994 and quash or set aside the same and alsodeclare the Government Memo No.42833/Police-C1/2001-1, Home (Police-C)Department, dated 11.3.2002 and the Head of the Department orders inC.O.Memo No.855/E1/2002 dated 18.6.2002 as illegal, arbitrary,unconstitutional and violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh PublicEmployment (Organisation of local cadres and regulation of direct recruitment)Order, 1975 and to further direct the official respondents to regulate the cadreof Sub-Inspectors in Zone-IV within the sanctioned cadre strength for the year1989 batch with all consequential benefits and pass such other suitable orders.

2. Official respondents in both the Writ Petitions are common. The unofficialrespondents, no doubt, are different, but, however, the questions involved inboth the Writ Petitions being common, both these Writ Petitions are beingdisposed of by a common order.

3. The Writ Petitioners stated that the Andhra Pradesh State Level PoliceRecruitment Board conducted selections for the recruitment of Sub-Inspectorsof Police in the year 1988 and the selections were held and against 55vacancies available in Zone-IV, selections and appointments were made. Allthe 55 vacancies available in the year 1988-89 were filled up by 1989 batchSub-Inspectors. It is further stated that after the 1989 batch, 1991 batch wasrecruited and they are immediate juniors to 1989 batch. As the Sub-Inspectorsof 1989 batch have already stood promoted as Inspectors of Police, it is nowthe turn of 1991 batch of Sub-Inspectors for promotion as Inspectors. In factsome of the 1991 batch Sub-Inspectors have already been promoted as

Inspectors. It is also further stated that there is an inter se dispute among the1989 batch Sub-Inspectors. Some of the Sub-Inspectors appointed and allottedto Hyderabad City Police desired to come to Zone-IV in view of better avenuesof promotion. At the instance of such Sub-Inspectors who were originallyappointed and selected to Hyderabad City Police but desired to come to Zone-IV, the Sub-Inspectors working in Zone-IV were replaced and vice versapostings were issued. It is further stated that aggrieved by the orders oftransfer from various zones, including Zone-IV to Hyderabad City Police,O.A.No.6915 of 1994 was filed before the Tribunal contending that the orders ofthe Government contained in G.O.Ms.No.288, Home (Police) Department,dated 6.5.1986 and their transfer from Zone-IV to Hyderabad City Police isillegal and violative of the Presidential Order. It is further stated that thoseapplicants impleaded none of the affected parties. It is also stated that theTribunal by its judgment dated 20.11.2001 allowed the OA holding that thetransfer of applicants to Hyderabad City Police is illegal and it was also heldthat unit of appointment is respective zones and persons appointed in one zonecannot be transferred to any other zone or Hyderabad City on permanent basis.It was further declared that the persons appointed in Zone-IV are entitled toretain their seniority in Zone-IV. It is further stated that the Government inMemo No.42833/Police-C1/2001-1, Home (Police-C) Department, dated11.3.2002 issued instructions to implement the orders of the Tribunal and theHead of the Department issued consequential orders in C.O.MemoNo.855/E1/2002, dated 18.6.2002. It is further stated that on account of postingof some of the applicants in OA.No.6915 of 1994 in Zone-IV without replacingany other person, the sanctioned strength for the year 1988-89 recruitment hasexceeded by 16 persons and all the 32 persons were shown above the 1991batch of the Sub-Inspectors of Zone-IV, thereby affecting their right forpromotion and advancement in service. It is further stated that the applicants inthe said OA had been transferred and posted to Hyderabad City Police inpursuant to direction issued by the Tribunal in R.P.Nos.4622, 4640 and 9453 of1989 dated 16.6.1989, they cannot seek to come back to Zone-IV. At any rateapplicants cannot be posted to Zone-IV as long as the persons transferred andposted in their place are retained in Zone-IV. It is further stated that inaccordance with the directions of the Tribunal, as stated above, simultaneouslyequal number of Sub-Inspectors were posted to Zone-IV in the place of

applicants in OA.No.6915 of1994. In the absence of their orders of appointmentin Zone-IV is questioned and without impleading them, no relief for retention inZone-IV could be claimed by the applicants therein. It is further stated that theTribunal had erred in allowing the OA and directing posting of the applicants inthe said OA in Zone-IV with seniority without deciding the issue of legality andvalidity of posting of 16 Sub-Inspectors of Hyderabad City Police in the place ofapplicants and the impact against such posting vis-a-vis the Presidential Orderor on the Sub-Inspectors of zone-IV. It is further stated that the Tribunal failedto appreciate that if the applicants in OA.No.6915 of 1994 were posted in Zone-IV with seniority, it would greatly enhance the existing strength beyond thesanctioned cadre strength. As against 55 vacancies available for 1988recruitment, on account of judgment of the Tribunal the strength was increasedto 71, which is contrary to the provisions of the Presidential Order and settledprinciples of law. It is also further stated that the Tribunal failed to appreciatethat on account of posting of 16 Sub-Inspectors additionally in Zone-IV, theconditions of service of 1991 Sub-Inspectors belonging to Zone-IV are directlyaffected. It is needless to say that these petitioners were not impleaded asparties in the aforesaid OA. It is further stated that once the Sub-Inspectorswere allotted, regulation of conditions of service should be within their unit ofappointment. There is no such provision in the Presidential Order for re-allotment of candidates from one unit of appointment to another unit ofappointment once they stood allotted to a particular unit. It is also further statedthat in view of the allotment made, there is a threat of reversion and in suchcircumstances having come to know about the effect or impact of the interimorder, which had been impugned in Writ Petition No.12348 of 2004 and the finalorder, which had been passed in OA.No.6915 of 1994 with M.A.No.2098 of2001, had been questioned.

4. It is needless to say that the writ petitioners are not parties to the aforesaidOA. Hence, claiming leave of the Court as they are affected parties, thepresent Writ Petitions are filed praying the reliefs specified supra.

5. At the outset it may be appropriate to look at the impugned order made inOA.No.6915 of 1994 with M.A.No.2098 of 2001, dated 20.11.2001 which readshereunder:

“All these present applicants are working as Sub-Inspectors ofPolice in Hyderabad City Police having been drawn from differentzones namely I, II, III and IV. They filed this application praying todeclare the action of the respondents in getting and continuingthem in Hyderabad City Police from the other units of appointmentas illegal and violative of Presidential Order and further theysought for a declaration that GO.Ms.No.288, Home (Police)Department, dated 6.5.1986 as illegal and arbitrary andconsequently they sought for a direction to re-allot them to theirrespective zones with all consequential benefits.

It is not in dispute that the applicants are born in different zones. Itis also not in dispute that the zone is a local area and the unit ofappointment for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. It is thesubmission of the learned counsel for the applicants that contra tosub-para 3 of the Presidential Order, the Government issuedG.O.Ms.No.288, dated 6.5.1986. It is also the submission of thelearned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are entitledfor their seniority to be maintained in their respective zones.Contra to the Presidential Order, the applicants were transferred tothe Hyderabad City Police. The action of the respondents isquestioned earlier in several other O.As., when similarly situatedpersons to that of the applicants were transferred from differentzones to Hyderabad City Police. In the said O.As., this Tribunalheld that such persons who are born in different zones, zone is theunit for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and thus, transferringthem from native zone to Hyderabad City Police is not inaccordance with the Presidential Order. Consequent on suchfindings of this Tribunal in various O.As., the Government issuedG.O.Ms.No.349, Home (Police-C) Department, dated 15.12.1997.Para 5 of the said G.O. reads that ‘the Government after carefulexamination of the entire matter direct that the transfers of PolicePersonnel from one local cadre to another local cadre be permittedonly for a limited period without conferring any right to seniority inthe local cadre which the individual is transferred even though thesaid transfer is on administrative grounds’. The learned counselfor the applicants thus submits that the O.A. may be disposed ofwith a direction to the respondents to re-transfer the applicants totheir respective zones as per G.O.Ms.No.349 dated 15.12.1997.

In the facts and circumstances of the case present herein andconsidering the submissions made by both the parties, therespondents are thus directed to maintain seniority of theapplicants in their original units of appointment in accordance withthe terms and conditions of G.O.Ms.No.349, dated 15.12.1997.The O.A. is allowed accordingly with the above directions. M.A.

also stands allowed”.

6. Mr.E.Manohar, learned Senior Counsel representing the writ petitionerswould contend that the Sub-Inspector post is a zonal post and while disposingof O.A.No.6915 of 1994, G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 6.5.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.349,dated 15.12.1997 have been considered. But, however, the historicalbackground of this litigation and the impact of the allotment order dated17.7.1989, by virtue of which the allotment had been made, had not beenconsidered and therefore the same had attained finality. The learned counselhad pointed out that the cadre strength cannot be increased and moreover theaffected parties were not impleaded in O.A.No.6915 of 1994. The learnedcounsel would also point out that it is not a case of transfer simplicitor and justby questioning G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 6.5.1986, no relief can be grantedinasmuch as the proceedings dated 17.7.1989 had attained finality and withoutquestioning the same and without considering the effect or impact of the saidproceedings, the OA could not have been allowed. The learned counsel hadalso pointed out several other aspects relating to the merits of the matter.

7. Mr.J.R.Manohar Rao contended that for the last 15 years these persons areworking in Zone-IV. He would also point out that Writ Petition No.12348 of 2004was filed only against an interim order and no doubt Writ Petition No.12349 of2004 was filed as against the final order made in OA.No.6915 of 1994 asaforesaid.

8. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I would contend that theseWrit Petitions were filed after obtaining leave of the Court. He, no doubt, wouldsubmit that the proceedings dated 17.7.1989 had not been considered andseveral other aspects relating to the historical background of the litigationcommencing from 1989 onwards had not been brought to the notice of theTribunal and the Government also had not brought to the notice of the Tribunalall these aspects and hence the impugned order in Writ Petition No.12349 of2004 was passed without appreciating the relevant aspects.

9. Mr.Nooti Ram Mohan Rao, on the contrary, would contend that therespondents in the Writ Petitions were meritorious candidates and whether theallotment order dated 17.7.1989 had been considered or not is immaterial forthe reason that the original appointments as can be seen from the Memo dated

19.12.1988 produced before this Court would show that these appointmentswere made on the ground that they are the meritorious candidates. He wouldfurther submit that these persons being the meritorious candidates, alteration ofthe cadre strength would not in any way alter the situation and therefore theimpugned order cannot be found fault with. The learned counsel would point outthat each zone would assume importance and in that regard he pointed out topara 5 of the Presidential Order in general and clause 5(1) of the said Order inparticular. The learned counsel would contend that the right to claim senioritywhen a person had been selected on the basis of the merit to the zone to whichin fact originally he had been appointed, is an unfettered right and hence thesepersons can go back to Zone-IV and the so-called allotment order cannot altertheir position. He would further contend that if at all the parties who may beaffected would be the excess candidates to the cadre strength and inasmuchas these candidates fall within the top of the merit list, they cannot be said tobe surplus candidates or in excess of the cadre strength. The learned counselalso had pointed out that these selections are of different years, viz., one is of1989 and another is of 1991, and hence the writ petitioners belonging to 1991batch may not have even the locus to question these proceedings by way ofthese Writ Petitions. The learned counsel ultimately would conclude that insofaras Sub-Inspectors who were promoted are concerned, their promotions shouldnot be disturbed and status quo to be maintained in the event the matters beingremitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

10. Mr.Prakash Reddy, the learned counsel would contend that thesubmissions made by Mr.Nooti Ram Mohan Rao that there is excess of cadrestrength is not correct. The learned counsel also had pointed out to 1989 batchand 1991 batch. In all fairness, the learned counsel would submit that the re-allotment made on 17.7.1989 was never questioned. The contention that it is inexcess of the cadre strength is not correct as the revised orders were passedon the representation made by certain Sub-Inspectors. He had also pointed outto the case of Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad-6[th] respondent in particular and haddemonstrated how these events had happened. The learned counsel also hadpointed to the orders made in R.P.Nos.4622, 4640 and 9453 of 1989 and wouldcontend that in the facts and circumstances and inasmuch as there is bulgingof the cadre strength by virtue of the orders passed in OA.No.6915 of 1994, these parties cannot be treated on a different footing at all. The learned counselalso had explained the scope and ambit of G.O.Ms.No.288, dated 6.5.1986 andG.O.Ms.No.349, dated 15.12.1997 in this regard.

11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

12. The impugned order in Writ Petition No.12349 of 2004 had already beenspecified supra. On a careful reading of the said order it is clear that theTribunal did not consider the aspect of allotment made, and its order inOA.No.1766 of 1990 and batch and also the proceedings dated 17.7.1989 whiledeciding O.A.No.6915 of 1994. Apart from this aspect of the matter, it alsoappears that the Government had not brought to the notice of the Tribunal thehistorical background of the litigation. No doubt Mr.Nooti Ram Mohan Raoplaced strong reliance on the proceedings C.No.C3/7/DRSI/88, dated19.12.1988 issued by the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police,Kurnool Range, Kurnool wherein it was specified as follows:

“You are selected as SI/RSI/Woman SI and allotted to Kurnoolzone. You are hereby directed to produce Physical FitnessCertificate issued by Civil Surgeon, and Marriage Declaration inthe Office of the Dy.Inspr.Genl.of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnoolon or before 25.12.1988 AN so as to issue appointment orders.The candidate who is selected under Sports quota should produceall Spoprts Certificates also in original. You will have to execute anagreement also on a non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.15/-. Alsobring all Educational Certificates in original”.

It is no doubt true that these proceedings, which have been specifically pointedout, show that the Sub-Inspectors were appointed to Kurnool zone. But that isnot the end of the litigation. On this ground submissions at length were madethat inasmuch as these appointments were made on merit in Kurnool zone andthough they came to Hyderabad zone, they have an unfettered right of seniorityin Kurnool zone and hence the allotment order dated 17.7.1989 would not comein their way. We are not inclined to go deep into these aspects. TheGovernment also had taken a stand that there are certain irregularities in thisregard. It is pertinent to note that the post of Sub-Inspector is a zonal post andthe promotions are governed on zonal basis. Hence the zonal system assumessome importance in this regard. In such a situation when it is not a transfer asunderstood by the Tribunal while making the order in OA.No.6915 of 1994, impugned in Writ Petition No.12349 of 2004, and when it is an allotment madeby virtue of the proceedings dated 17.7.1989, taking all the facets of thelitigation into consideration the non-consideration of the proceedings dated17.7.1989 would assume lot of importance. It is also pertinent to note that thisallotment was made on 17.7.1989 whereas the individual orders issued to theaforesaid meritorious candidates are dated 19.12.1988. Apart from this aspectof the matter, subsequent thereto also much water had flown in the light of theorder made in O.A.No.1766 of 1990 and batch and R.P.Nos.4622, 4640 and9453 of 1989. Clause 5(1) of the Presidential Order has a bearing on zonalappointment and date of appointment. The individual orders issued to themeritorious candidates dated 19.12.1988 and the proceedings dated 17.7.1989no doubt had been elaborated by the counsel representing the respectiveparties. On appreciation of over all material available on record especially inthe light of the stand taken by the Government relating to the non-production ofthe records and non-furnishing of the historical background of the liscommencing from 1988-89 onwards, we are of the considered view thatOA.No.6915 of 2004 and MA.No.2098 of 2001 had not been decided by theTribunal taking into consideration all the relevant aspects inclusive of theallotment order made by proceedings dated 17.7.1989. The Tribunal also hadnot decided the matter taking all the facets of the lis into consideration andhence it is needless to say that the impugned order challenged in Writ PetitionNo.12349 of 2004 cannot be sustained.

13. As a last ground of attack, delay also was made a ground. It is pertinent tonote that the writ petitioners are non-parties to the litigation and they are of1991 batch and aggrieved by the threat of reversion and impact on the chancesof promotions, it became inevitable to the writ petitioners in Writ PetitionNo.12348 of 2004 referred to supra to approach this Court questioning the orderof status quo in OA.Nos. 2925, 2928 and 2929 of 2004 and also the impugnedorder made in OA.No.6915 of 1994 in Writ Petition No.12349 of 2004. Hence,we are of the opinion that these parties are non-parties to the litigation and inview of the threat of reversion and also in view of the closure of promotionavenues, at appropriate stage they approached this Court by filing the presentWrit Petitions. Consequently the ground of attack of delay also will fall into insignificance.

14. It is needless to say that the impugned orders in both the Writ Petitionscannot be sustained and accordingly they are hereby set aside. The mattersare accordingly remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and theTribunal shall give opportunity to all the affected parties concerned and decidethe matters afresh in accordance with law. This exercise shall be completedwithin a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder. Pending disposal of the O.A.Nos. 2925, 2928 and 2929 of 2004 andO.A.No.6915 of 1994 by the Tribunal, status quo as obtaining today in respectof the candidates covered by the Writ Petitions shall be maintained.

15. In the result, both the Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicatedabove. No costs.

-------------------------------------

(G.BIKSHAPATHY, J.)28[th] December, 2004.

--------------------------------------(P.S.NARAYANA, J.)SSRL.R. copy to be marked.

;// TRUE COPY //

..... REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To

1 The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad.

2 The Secretary, Home Department, Government of Andhra Pradsesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

3 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool.

4 The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad.

5 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad.

6 The Registrar, A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

7 2 CCs to G.P. for Services-I, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. (OUT)

8 2 CD copies.