The Commandant, Vs U.Mallikarjuna Rao

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records connected with order dated^1B- 12-2003 in O.A.No.9040/1998 on the file of Honble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and^quash the same as erroneous and contrary to law.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2OF 2004(WPMP. NO: 9973 OF 2004)

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased suspend the operation of tl're orders dated 18-12-2003^passedin

¶19

=v

¶20

O.A.No.9040/'1998 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶21

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2004UWMP. NO: 1444 OF 2004

¶22

Between:

¶23

U.Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o Subramanyam, Home Guard Prakasham District Rl/o LIG369, AP Housing Board Colony, Ongole, Prakasham District

¶24

..PETITIONERYRESPONDENTS

¶25

AND

¶26

1 The Commandant, 12th Bn., APSP, Anneparthy, Nalgonda

¶27

2 The Director General of Police, A.P., Hyderabad. J The Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasham District.

¶28

...RESPONDENTS/PETTTIONERS

¶29

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dI 23-4-2OO4 passed in WPIVP No.9973 of 2004 in WP No.7649 of 2004 in the interest of justice.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner : GP FOR SERVICES I

¶31

Counsel forthe Respondents: M/s.M RATNA REDDY

¶32

W.P.No.20435 OF 2004

¶33

Between:

¶34

lnspector General of Police, A.P. Special Police, Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶35

Superintendent of Police, Warangal District.

¶36

Commandant,4th Bn. A.P.S.P., [\4amnoor, Warangat.

¶37

...PETITIONERS

¶38

AND

¶39

Sri Gopiraju Karunakar, Ladella, Atmakur Mandal, Warangal District.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of wRlr

¶42

tw .3::/

¶43

OF CERITIORARI calling for the records connected with order dated 19-12-2003 in O.A.No.3502 of 2003 on the file of the Honble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same as erroneous and contrary to law.

¶44

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004(WPMP. NO: 26760 OF 2004)

¶45

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders, dated 19-12-2003 in O.A.No.3502 of 2003 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioner : GP FOR SERVICES I

¶47

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI B.NARAYANA REDDY

¶48

W.P.No.21180 OF 2004

¶49

Between:

¶50

lnspector General of Police, A.P. Special Police, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶51

Superintendent of Police, Warangal District.

¶52

Commandant, 7th BN. apsp, DICHPALLY, NIZAMABAD.

¶53

...PETITIONER

¶54

AND

¶55

Bachu Raju, Kothapeta Village, Hanamkonda [\rlandal, Warangal District.

¶56

...RESPONDENTS

¶57

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records connected with order dt. 19.12.2OO3 in O.A.No.3391 of 2003 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal and erroneous.

¶58

l.A. No: LQF 2002l(WPMP-NQlZTZlzt oF 20041

¶59

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased

¶60

9+{

¶61

,

¶62

Suspend the operation of the orders, dt. 19 12.2003 in O.A.No.3390 of 2003 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad pending disposal of the W.P.

¶63

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2005(WVMP. NO: 105 OF 2005 )

¶64

Between:

¶65

Bachu Raju, Kothapeta Village, Hanamkonda lt/andal, Warangal District.

¶66

...PETITIONERYRESPONDENTS

¶67

AND

¶68

lnspector General of Police, A.P. Special Police, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2. Superintendent of Police, Warangal District.

¶69

J. Commandant, 7th BN. apsp, DICHPALLY, NIZAMABAD.

¶70

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER

¶71

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to vacate the interim orders granted on 29-12-2004 in the writ petition.

¶72

Counsel for the Petitioner : GP FOR SERVICES I

¶73

Counsel forthe Respondents: B.NARAYANA REDDY

¶74

W.P.No.98 OF 2005

¶75

Between:

¶76

lnspector General of Police, A.P. Special Police, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶77

Superintendent of Police, Warangal District.

¶78

Commandant, 4th Bn. A.P.S.P., X/lamnoor, Warangal.

¶79

...PETITIONER

¶80

AND

¶81

Sri Jannu Yugender, Kotha Peta (V), Hanmakonda [\4andal, Warangal District.

¶82

...RESPONDENTS

¶83

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records connected with order dt. 19.12.2003 in O.A.No. 3387 of 2003 on the file of the Honble Andhra pradesh

¶84

ryr

¶85

Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same as erroneous and contrary to law and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶86

I.A. NO: 1 OF 200S(WPMP. NO: 111 0F 2005)

¶87

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased Suspend the operation of the orders dt. 19.12.2003 passed in O.A.No.3387 of 2003 on the file of A.P., Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶88

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2005(WVMP. NO: 487 0F 2005)

¶89

Between:

¶90

Sri Jannu Yugender, Kotha Peta (V), Hanmakonda I/andal, Warangal District.

¶91

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS

¶92

AND

¶93

1 lnspector General of Police, A.P. Special Police, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶94

2 Superintendent of Police, Warangal District. a Commandant, 4th Bn. A.P.S.P., Mamnoor, Warangal.

¶95

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶96

Petition under section 15'1 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders granted on '19-1-2005 in the writ petition.

¶97

Counsel for the Petitioner : GP FOR SERVICES I

¶98

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI B.NARAYANA REDDY

¶99

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

,,.tf

i l

i i j I I

THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶104

WRIT PETITION Nos.7649,20435 AND 21180 OF 2004 AND 98 0F 2005

¶105

COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

¶106

Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, all these Writ Petitions are being hcard together and disposecl of by n,av of this common orcler.

¶107

W.P.No.7649 of 2004 is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 'L8.72.2003, passed in O.A.No.9040 of 1998 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal').

¶108

W.P.Nos.20435 and 21180 of 2004 and 98 of 2005 are filed aggrieved by the orders, dated 19.1,2.2003, passed in O.A.Nos.3502, 3390 and 3387 of 2003, respectively, by the Tribunal.

¶109

4 Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services (Home)

¶110

appearing for the petitioners and Sri B. Vivekanand, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶111

5 It is the case of the petitioners that the responclents were provisionally selected as Stipendiary Trainee Cactet police

2

i I j I

I I I I I I I

AKS,J & ETD,J W.P.No.7649 of 2004 & batch Constables (for short 'STCPC') in 12th Batalion of Andfua Pradesh Special Police. However, during verification of the antecedents, it has come to the notice of the petitioners that the respondents involved in criminal cases. Therefore, the provisional selection of the respondents was cancelled and they were not considered for appointment to the post of STCPC. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents approached the Tribunal by filing the subject O.As. and the Tribunal aide irnpugned orders, dated 78.72.2003 and 19.12.2003, was pleased to allow the subject O.As- and erroneously directed the petitioners to give appointment orders to the respondents by sending them to training, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners.

¶116

Learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing for the petitioners had contended that when the respondents have suppressed about their involvement in criminal cases, the question of considering their cases for appointment to the post of STCPC would not arise. The Tribunal could not have given a positive Mandamus directing the petitioners to send the respondents for training, in spite of the fact that the respondents have involved in

¶117

3

¶118

AKS,I & F,ID,] l'.P.No.7649 of 2004 & batch

¶119

criminal cases. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petitions by setting aside the impugned orders, dated 18.12.2003 and 19."12.2003, and allow the Writ Petiiions.

¶120

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents had contended that the respondents were falsely implicated ln the criminal cases ancl the said cases ended in compromise. Thereforc, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the subject O.As. in favour of the respondents. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.

¶121

8 This Court having considered the rival submissions made by

¶122

thc learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the Tribunal could not have given a positive Mandamus directing the petitioners to appoint the respondents as STCPCs and send them for haining. Further, the issue raised in the present Writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and othersl, wherein, the Honouiable Supreme Court has held that the cases of

¶123

the candidates involved in criminal cases have to be considered in '^{(2016)B SCC47-1.}

o

.r..rr"tffilt"Jli

&

terms of the guidelines framed by it in paragraph No.30 of the said judgment. Therefore, the impugned orders, dated 18.12.2003 and 79.12.2003, passed by the Tribunal are liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same are set aside. The petitioners are directed to examine the cases of the respondents in terms of the guiclelines framed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra).

¶128