THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WP Nos.20186 and 20187 of 2010 COMMON O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Government Pleader for Home. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 2. WP No.20186 of 2010 is filed questioning the order dated 28.07.2010 passed in O.A.No.193 of 2010 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. W.P.No.20187 of 2010 is filed questioning the order dated 28.07.2010 passed in O.A.No.4924 of 2010 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Since both the writ petitions are interconnected, the parties are also same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The respondents in the OAs are the writ petitioners herein. The case of the applicants in OAs, was that in the year 1996, they and the writ petitioners were selected as Sub-Inspectors of Police pursuant to the notification issued by the Police Recruitment Board. Pursuant to the selection, the official respondents sent first batch of trainees for training from 11.11.1996 to 30.09.1997 and the applicants were deputed to training as second batch which commenced from 19.01.1998 and both batches belong to the same homogenous group as the selection is through a common notification issued in the year 1996. It was the case of the applicants that their deputation for training subsequently is on account of administrative ground to which they are not responsible. It is stated that as per the AP Police Subordinate Service Rules, proviso to Rule-15 inter-se- seniority of Sub-Inspectors of Police shall be fixed as per the aggregate marks obtained on completion of training in Police Training College or with AP Police Academy instead ranking obtained at the time of selection. It is the case of the applicants that as they and the writ petitioners belong to same batch and their selection is one and the same and delay in deputation of training to them is on account of administrative reasons, they cannot be discriminated on the sole ground that they were sent to training on a subsequent date and fix their seniority separately. 4. The Tribunal by the impugned order, pending adjudication of the main OAs, direction to consider the claim of the applicants for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police duly fixing their placements along with 1996 batch by including in “C” list of Sub-Inspectors fit to act as Inspectors of Police in terms of proviso to Rule 15 (a) of AP Police Sub-ordinate Service Rules by taking into consideration the aggregate marks obtained at the end of training in AP Police Academy, as per Rule 15 of AP Police Subordinate Service Rules. The Tribunal passed the impugned interim orders considering the contention of the counsel to the effect that when similar question arose with regard to fixation of seniority of Sub-Inspectors of Police of 1991 and 1992 batch of trainees who were selected through a common notification, the Government after examining the entire situation, issued Memo.No.3119/Legal/2003 Home (Ser.I) dated 17.03.2003 clarifying that the Sub-Inspector of Police sent for training in the year 1992 pursuant to common selection of 1991 notification are entitled to seniority along with 1991 batch by interspersing at their rightful places taking the Police Training College marks into account. It is stated that when that memo was questioned before this Court, this Court in WP No.18057 of 2004 and batch, ruled that the selections of the individuals who are selected at the same recruitment, cannot be treated as a separate batch, but must be considered to be part and parcel of the same batch. 5. Inasmuch as the main OAs are yet to be adjudicated, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the Tribunal to dispose of the OAs expeditiously within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this order. In the meanwhile there shall be a direction to the official respondents to consider the cases of the un-official respondents, for the promotion to the post of Inspector, in future vacancies. However, any promotions already given to writ petitioners of the year 1996 batch, will be subject to the result of the OAs. No costs. __________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ______________​____ N.RAVI SHANKAR,J 27th December, 2010. Note: Furnish CC in three days. PNV