IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NOs : 34306 of 1998, 14232 of 2004, 15384 of 2004, 17223 of 2004, 17446 of 2004, 17673 of 2004, 18043 of 2004, 18207 of 2004, 19319 of 2004, 19816 of 2004 and 22485 of 2004 WRIT PETITION NO : 34306 of 1998 Between: 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Govt. of A.P.Genl.Admn.Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Secretary to Government, Home Dept., Government of Andhra Pradesh , Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3.The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, A.P. Office of the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Lakadikapool, Hyderabad. 4.Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad. 5.Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1.Y.Yugender Reddy S/o Kondal Reddy, age 27 years, R/o Dhacharam M/o Mothkur, Dist. Nalgonda. 2.Muppidi Sunil Kumar S/o Anantha Reddy, Aged 28 years, R/o 3-1-219, Christian Colony, Karimnagar. 3.Muppidi Ram Kumarreddy S/o Venkata Reddy, aged 31 years, C/o H.No.5-11-63,Vidya Rangorpuri, Manakonda, Warangal District. 4.V.Madhusudhan Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy, 28 years, C/o H.No.1-6-243/2/A,Jamisthanpur Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 5.M.Jithender Reddy S/o Ranga Reddy, age 26 years, R/o Will Post, Dacharam, Mandal Mathkur, Nalgoda District. 6.Nagavaram Mahender Rao S/o Arjun Rao, abged about 27 years R/o Boddupallim Devarkonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. (R.6 to 24 are not necessary parties here) 7.Sreepathi Kondal Reddy S/o Laxma Reddy, aged about 26 years, C/o Room No.89 D.Hostel, O.U.Campus,Hyderabad. 8.Laxmi Narsimha Reddy S/o Ram Reddy, aged about 26 years, C/o Plot No.48 Vasavi Nagar Road, Nagarjuna Nagr,Colony, Kushaiguda,Hyderabad. 9.B.Narsimha Reddy S/o Bali Reddy, aged about 26 years, C/o C. Hostel, Room No.37, O.U.Campus, Hyderabad. 10.G.Madhusudhan Reddy S/o Krishna Reddy, aged about 27 years C/o E2.Hostel, Room No.45,O.U.Campus, Hyderabad. 11.K.Satish Kumar S/o Kaladhar Rao, aged about 26 years, C/o Room No.5 C.Hostel,O.U.Campus, Hyderabad. 12.Rama Chandra Rao Ponugoti S/o Narsimha Rao, aged about 27 years, R/o Moghalai Kota, Kodad Mandal Nalgonda District. 13.P.Bixapathi Rao S/o Laxma Rao, aged about 26 years, C/o Room No.33 Old P.G. Hostel, O.U.Campus, Hyderabad. 14.A.Krishna Rao S/o Yadaiah, aged about 27 years, C/o 1-9-18/4/1,Ramangar X Roads, Hyderabad. 15.B.Sammi Reddy S/o Linga Reddy, aged about 29 years, C/o Room No.20, E2 Hostel, O.U. Campus, Hyderabad. 16.B.Laxma Reddy S/o Linga Reddy, aged about 26 years, C/o Room No.20, E2 Hostel, O.U. Campus, Hyderabad. 17.M.Srinivasa Reddy S/o M.Narasimha Reddy, aged about 29 years, C/o Room No.5,E2 Hostel, O.U.Campus, Hyderabad. 18.C.Ajay Babu S/o Narsimha Reddy, aged 26 years, C/o Room No.29,Old P.G. Hostel, O.U. Campus, Hyderabad. 19. A.P.A.T.Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar. 20.Y.Prakash Reddy S/o Y. Siddarami Reddy, aged about 26 years, R/o Room No.19,C.Hostel, O.U. Campus, Hyderabad, 21.R.Srinivas Reddy S/o R. Sudarshan Reddy, aged about 26 years, R/o Room No.19, C .Hostel, O.U. Campus, Hyderabad, 22.Ch.Ramamurthy Naidu S/o Ch. Krsihna Rao, aged about 28years, R/o Room No.19, C. Hostel, O.U. Campus, Hyderabad, 23.M.V.Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 33 years, R/o Room No.19, C. Hostel, O.U. Campus, Hyderabad, 24.Md.Anifur Rehman, aged about 27 years, R/o Room No.19, C. Hostel, O.U. Campus, Hyderabad, 25.P.Kasivishwanadham, aged about 31 years, R/o Room No.19, C. Hostel, O.U. Campus, Hyderabad, 26.K.Satishchandra Rao, aged about 28 years, R/o Room No.19, C.Hostel, O.U. Campus, Hyderabad, 27.P.Raghunath S/o Kumariahm aged about 31 years, R/o Room No.19,C.Hostel, O.U. Campus, Hyderabad, 28.K.Sriman Reddy, aged about 28 years, R/o Room No.19, C. Hostel, O.U. Campus, Hyderabad, 29.P.C.V.Subba Reddy, aged about 29 years, Rajampet, Cuddapah district. 30.J.Kalinga Reddy, aged about 26 years, R/o Room No.19, C. Hostel, O.U. Campus, Hyderabad, 31.P.Bikshapathi Rao, aged 27 years, R/o Room No.19, C.Hostel, O.U. Campus, Hyderabad, (Respondents 20 to 31 are impleaded as per court order Dated: 1-4-99 in WPMP.3552/99) 32.M.Raveendar Reddy S/o M. Bakka Reddy, H.No.1-9-286/2/428, Ramnagar Gundu, Hyderabad. (RR.32 to 40 are impleaded as per court order dt.14-10-99 passed in W.P.M.P.No. 13533/99 in W.P.No.34306/98) 33.B.Linga Reddy S/o Venkanna, Post Yergatla Morthad(M), Nizamabad District 34.R.Srinivas S/o R.Satyanarayana, R/o H.No.5-117,Shabunagar, Miryalaguda(P), Nalgonda District 35.P.Venkateshwarlu S/o P.Ramaiah, R/o Chillapur(V), Thungapahad(Post), Miryalaguda(M), Nalgonda(D), 36.S.Madan Mohan Reddy S/o S.Pakeera Reddy R/o H.No.7-35,Madhurapuri Colony, Dilsukhnagr, Hyderabad. 37.J.Ramesh Kumar S/o M.Hanumantha Rao R/o H.No.9-4-31/3,Ananthanagar,Sircilla Karimnagar District, 38.S.Giri Prasad S/o S.Bikshamaiah R/o H.No.10-5-111, Mamillagudem, Khammam District, 39.B.Yadagiri Swamy S/o Yadaiah R/o H.No.5-50, L.B.Nagar, R.R. District at Hyderabad, 40.S.V.V.Satyanarayana S/o S.Srirama Murthy R/o Nageswarapuram, Tallapudi(M), W.G.District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling the records of APAT in O.A.No.2430/98 and quash the Judgement in O.A.2430/98 & Batch, dated: 24-9-98. Counsel for the Petitioner: The Advocate General Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr.K. Lakshmi Narasimha Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 19: None appeared. Counsel for the Respondent No.20 to 40: MR.R.V.Mallikarjuna Rao WRIT PETITION NO : 14232 of 2004 Between: 1. The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2. The Director General & Inspector General of Police, A.P. Hyderabad 3. Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1.Guduru Sanjeeva, r/o Plot No.17, Shivapuri Colony, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad-500 074. 2.Venkat Reddy Gudibandla, P.C.No.2009, P.S.Nakrekal, Nalgonda District 507 164. 3.Gorla Seetha Reddy, S.G.Teacher, r/o Rejerla Village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District. 4.Chilumula Venkat Reddy, P.C.No.2082, Police Station, "DINDI' Gundlapally, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein 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 27-2-2004 in O.A.No.6743 of 2002 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal and erroneous. Counsel for the Petitioner: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 &4: None appeared Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 15384 of 2004 Between: 1. The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2. The Director General & Inspector General of Police, A.P. Hyderabad 3. Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Sri.N.Buchaiah Police Constable No.133 P.S.Bhongir town, Nalongd Distirct .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "WRIT OF CERITIORARI" and to call for records connected with order dated: 16/04/2004 in OA.No.5999/2003 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same as erroneous and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioner: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent : None appeared. WRIT PETITION NO : 17223 of 2004 Between: 1. The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2. The Director General & Inspector General of Police, A.P. Hyderabad 3. Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND M. Rambabu, R.S.I, 7th Battallion, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will 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 27-2-2004 in O.A.No. 1061 of 2003 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal and erroneous. Counsel for the Petitioner: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent : MR. J.R. MANOHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 17446 of 2004 Between: 1.The Govt of A.P., rep. by its Secretary to Home Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2.The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, A.P. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND B. Madhusudhana Goud, R/o. OWK (PO) & Mandal, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein 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: 27.2.2004 in O.A. No. 10047 of 2002 on the file of the Hon'le Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal and erroneous. Counsel for the Petitioner: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent : None appeared WRIT PETITION NO : 17673 of 2004 Between: 1. The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2. The Director General & Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 3. Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4.The Dy. Inspector General, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1.B.Nagaraju R.S.I. (AR) Vyas Block Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2.Sk.Sultan Basha P.C.No.1943 P.S.Sullurpeta, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will 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 27-2-2004 in O.A.No.2586 of 2003 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal and erroneous. Counsel for the Petitioner: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents : MR. J.R. MANOHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 18043 of 2004 Between: 1.The Government of A.P. rep by its Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat of A.P. Hyderabad. 2.The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1.M. Srinivasa Rao, P.C. No. 8191, Traffic, Monda Market P.S., Secunderabad. 2.B. Ravindeer Reddy, R/o. Room No. 12, Manjeera Hostel, O.U. Campus, Hyderabad. 3.D. Srinivasa Rao, P.C. No. 4843, Charminar, P.S. Hyderabad. 4.G. Mahendra Reddy, R.S.I. 13 the Batallian, Mancheriala, Adilabad District. 5.T. Laxma Reddy, P.C. No. 1287, Vigilance & APTS., 4/7, Brodipet, Guntur, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of "WRIT OF CERITIORARI," calling for the records connected with order dated 27-2-2004 in O.A.No. 7464/2002 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal and erroneous. Counsel for the Petitioner: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents : MR. J.R. MANOHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 18207 of 2004 Between: 1.Government of A.P., rep by Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2.The Chairman State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Sri Satish Chander Rao R/o A-14, III Floor, Abids Shopping Centre, Abids, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and to call for records connected with order dated 16-02-2004 in O.A. No. 7759 of 1998 on the file of hte Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same as erroneous and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioner: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent : None appeared. WRIT PETITION NO : 19319 of 2004 Between: 1.Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2.The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1.Y. Yugander Reddy S/o Kondal Reddy, aged about 27 years. 2.M. Jithender Reddy, S/o Ranga Reddy, aged about 26 years. 3.P. Ramachandar Rao S/o Narasimha Rao, aged about 27 years. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" and to call for records connected with order dated 16-02-2004 in O.A.No.7859 of 1998 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same as erroneous and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioner: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared WRIT PETITION NO : 19816 of 2004 Between: 1.Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2.The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1.Sri M. V. Srinivasa Rao, P.C. No. 1525, R/o. Plot No. 48, Vinayakanagar Colony, Hayatnagar, R.R.District, 2.P. Kasiviswanadham, P.C. No. 1407, C/o. Town P.S., Tadepalligudem, W.G.District. ....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue an appropriate Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Ceritiorari and to call for records connected with order dated: 16.02.2004 in O.A.No.7827 of 1998 on the file of the Hon'ble A.P., Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same as erroneous and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioner: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared WRIT PETITION NO : 22485 of 2004 Between: 1.Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2.The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1.Ch. Rama Murthy Naidu, S.I. of Police, O/o The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad. 2.Arif-Ur-Reehman, S.I. of Police, O/o The Commissisoner of Police, Hyderabad, 3.Y. Prakash Reddy, S.I. of Police, O/o the S.P., Mahabubnagar. 4.R. Srinivasa Reddy, S.I. of Police, O/o The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. (All the Applicants belongs to Hyderabad City). .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" and to call for records connected with order dated 16-2-2004 in O.A.No. 7828 of 1998 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same as erroneous and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioner: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT: (PER G.BIKSHAPATHI, J) 1. All the Writ Petitions can be disposed of by a common order, as they arises out of the recruitment to the posts of Sub Inspector of Police for the year 1998. 2. The Writ Petition No.34306 of 1998 was filed assailing the order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.2172 of 1998 and batch, dated 24.09.1998. Subsequently, some more O.As were filed seeking relief under the Presidential Order and also basing on the order passed in O.A.No.2172 of 1998 and batch and the Tribunal granted interim directions from time to time. Finally O.As were also disposed of, without recording any finding on the merit of the case, on the ground that the applicants were appointed to the post, and as such no further orders were necessary. Aggrieved by those orders, the Government carried the matter in the present Writ Petitions. Therefore, it is found appropriate to dispose of the connected matters at a time, so as to put a quietus to the lis. 3. Before we go to other Writ Petitions, we shall consider the Writ Petition No.34036 of 1998 and batch, which were filed against the order passed by the Tribunal dated: 24.9.1998 in the batch of O.As. referred to above. However, it is necessary to refer to some essential facts leading to the filing of batch of O.As and also the Writ Petitions. 4. The State Level Police Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Recruitment Board’) issued a notification, dated 11.03.1998, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) and Reserve Sub- Inspector (Armed Reserve) in the State of Andhra Pradesh. However, in this batch we are only concerned with Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). The requirements inter alia for making an application to the said post is that one should have completed 21 years of age as on 01.071997 and should not have completed 25 years of age. Certain categories of persons like S.C./S.T./B.C. etc. were given age relaxations. Eligible candidates submitted their applications. At this juncture applications in O.A.No.2172 of 1998 and batch came to be filed by the O.C. candidates seeking directions to grant age concession of five years over and above the permissible notified maximum age. The relief as claimed by them in the words of the Tribunal is as follows: “The O.As. filed are with a request to call for the records relating to and connected with the Advertisement in Rc.No.534/R&T/Admn.I/97, dated: 11.3.1998 and G.O.Ms.No. 561, GAD, dated: 11.10.1988 and to declare that the not extending the concession of age of 5 years in computing the upper age limit for the O.C. candidates alone as discriminatory, illegal and arbitrary and also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the same is based on ‘descent’ of an individual and violative of the Judgment in R.P.No. 2599/1987, dated: 9.10.1987, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of India and consequently quash the clause 3(a) of the Advertisement dated: 11.3.1998 and consequently that, the said age concession of 5 years relaxation in upper age limit will not apply to the posts in Police, Forest Excise and Fire Services Departments as illegal and to direct the respondents to accord uniform age concession to all the competing candidates without any discrimination as ordered by the erstwhile Tribunal in R.P.No.2599/1987.” By virtue of the Interim orders passed by the Tribunal, those applicants were allowed to sit for examination and ultimately O.As were allowed by an Order dated: 24.9.1998. Against the said O.As, W.P.No.34306 of 1998 was filed by the Government. However, in the meanwhile, out of the applicants who approached the Court seeking higher age limit, moved the contempt applications before the Tribunal on the ground that they were selected and were not sent for training. At the pain of contempt, some of the applicants were issued with the appointment orders and they were sent for training. A condition was stipulated in the order of appointment that the appointments were subject to result in the Writ Petition No.34306 of 1998. Subsequently, some more applications came to be filed by the candidates belonging to 1998 selection, in O.A.No.470 and 639 of 1999 seeking directions to conduct the selection in accordance with the Presidential Order and to fill up 70% of vacancies by local candidates and 30% of vacancies by open category candidates viz., local and non-locals basing on zone wise selection and by computing the vacancies up to 11.03.1998 and not up to 31st July, 1997. The Tribunal, however, allowed the same with the following directions: “In the result we hold that: 1. The selection to the post of Sub Inspector (Civil) is a multi-zone cadre selection and the procedure stipulated in G.O.(P) No. 763, General Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated 15.11.1975 should be followed. 2. The respondents have to compute the total number of vacancies available as on the date of the Notification i.e. 11.03.1998. 3. The respondents are directed to appoint the applicants as Sub Inspectors (Civil). However, their appointment will be subject to the out-come of W.P. No.34306 of 1998 on the file of the High court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad”. The said Order became final as no Writ Petitions were filed by the Government. 5. In pursuance of the said directions, some more applicants came to be appointed on the same condition. Since some of the candidates who were appointed by virtue of the interim orders passed by the Tribunal secured lesser marks than the other candidates, they approached the Tribunal to appoint them as Sub Inspector of Police on the ground that the persons with lesser marks were appointed. Initially, their cases were also directed to be considered and appointment orders were directed to be issued pending the O.A. Finally, when the O.As came up for final hearing, the Tribunal observing that the Government implemented the orders of the Tribunal, closed the matter, as no further orders are necessary. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Government carried the matter in this batch of Writ Petitions. 6. It was the contention of the applicants before the Tribunal that they are entitled for five years relaxation on the ground that the similarly situate persons were granted the relaxation in respect of other services. It was also stated before the Tribunal that even in respect of recruitment for Sub Inspectors of Police, the Tribunal allowed age relaxation in R.P.No.2599 of 1987 and the Government had withdrawn the S.L.P. before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the applicants claimed five years relaxation in this recruitment also as of right. 7. It is the contention of the learned Advocate General that the recruitment must be in conformity with the special rules, where under, the minimum and maximum age has been fixed for O.C candidates which is 21 and 25 years. Therefore, in the absence of any relaxation under the Rules, the candidates with higher age, over and above the prescribed age under the rules, are not eligible and the notification issued was in accordance with the said rules. It is also stated that in G.O.Ms.No.270, Home (Pol.C) Department, dated 02.04.1990, Government issued special rules for recruitment to the posts of Police Executives, wherein upper age limit was prescribed in respect of Sub Inspectors, which is only 25 years and this upper age was not introduced in the year 1998, for the first time. In all the recruitments, the upper age limit was continued at 25 years only. Further, the age relaxation was given to certain other categories right from inception. It is being made clear by the Government from time to time in the statutory rules that the relaxation of upper age was not applicable to A.P. Police Subordinate Service and A.P. Special Armed Forces. Some time, the Government also issued relaxation for certain period. The relaxation was made to the posts other than the posts of Executive nature in Police, Excise and Forest Departments etc., Reference was made to G.O.Ms.No.843, dated 17.09.1971, and G.O.Ms.No.354 dated 30.06.1983. However, the G.O.No.354 was struck down by the Tribunal in R.P.No.2599 of 1987, dated 09.10.1987. In G.O.Ms.No.561, General Administration (Services. A) Department, dated 11.10.1988, age relaxation was again given by six years for direct recruitment posts other than the posts in executive nature i.e., Police, Excise, Forest and Fire Services Departments. In1990, Special Rules were framed for A.P. Police Subordinate Services. When recruitment was made in 1991, upper age was modified from 25 years to 27 years as one time measure only. Even in1993, age relaxation was given in respect of the posts other than the Police, Excise, Forest and Fire Services posts and similar Writ Petitions were filed seeking relaxation in respect of 1993 recruitment. The Tribunal by order, dated 11.02.1994, in O.A.No.3621 of 1993, held that the applicants were not allowed to claim higher age relaxation. However, during 1994, age relaxation was granted by the Government from 25 years to 26 years as one time measure in respect of S.I. Recruitment. Again in 1997, Ad hoc Rules were framed as Stipendiary Cadet Trainees S.Is., etc., in G.O.Ms.No.331, dated 22.12.1997. In pursuance of the said Rules, the notification was issued on 11.03.1998. It is also contended on behalf of the State that in respect of same recruitment in 1998, some more O.As were filed seeking relaxation of age by five years in O.A.No.2470 and 2639, 2749 and 3196 of 1998 and the Tribunal dismissed the O.As on 23.04.1998, on the ground that they have no