IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22556 of 1999 Between: 1 Govt of A.P rep by Law Secretary, Govt. of A.P. , Hyderabad. 2 Chairman, State Level Police recruitment Board Office Of Director, General And Inspector General of Police Office Complex, Hyderabad. 3 Director Of Prosecutions, Office of the Director General & Inspector General of Police office Complex, Hyderabad. .... PETITIONERS AND 1 M.V.Narasimhaa Rao H.No.11-1-8/3/DCMS Colony, Kanteswar, Nizamabad. 2 A.Raghuram Bhoopal c/o A.Narsinga aRAo, Advocate , Amberpet, Nizamabad. 3 APAT rep by Registrar Hyderabaad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari by calling for the records of the Hon'ble A.P.A.T. in O.A.No.5991/98 and quash the judgement of the Hon'ble APAT in O.A.No.5991/98 dt :10-9-98. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for Respondents 1&2: Mr.GOPALA RAO GANDRAKOTA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22556 of 1999 ORAL ORDER: (per C.V. RAMULU,J) This Writ Petition is directed against an Order dated 10-9-1998 made in O.A.No.5991 of 1998 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal. It appears, in pursuance of a notification dated 12-10-1992 issued by the State Level Police Recruitment Board for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors, applicants-respondents 1 and 2 herein along with others applied for the said post. According to the applicants, it was notified as a zonal post and though they were selected after going through written test and oral interview, they are not being appointed. The stand taken by the respondents in the O.A. (petitioners herein) is that the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor is a Statewide post and not zonal-wise post. This issue was examined by the Tribunal in the light of the earlier orders passed by it in O.A.No.963 of 1993, dated 26-4-1994 and O.A.No.2751 of 1995, dated 5-6-1996 wherein it was held that the recruitment should be on statewide basis. The Tribunal observed that it was the case of the applicants that the selection was not in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.963 of 1993 and 2751 of 1995 and the selection of applicants has not been set aside either by the Tribunal or by the petitioners herein. The applicants were not questioning the G.O. under which appointments were made and restricted their relief to the extent that their cases may also be considered for appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutors in the existing vacancies. The Tribunal further found that in view of the selection of the applicants as Asst.Public Prosecutors and as their options and attestation forms have already been obtained, respondents therein were estopped from taking a plea that the applicants have not come up for selection and, therefore, held that the applicants deserve to be considered for appointment for the post of Asst.Public Prosecutor in the existing vacancies based on their selections. Hence, this writ petition. We have given our anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record. At the time of admission of the writ petition 21-1-2000, the impugned Order of the Tribunal was suspended and the same is still subsisting. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal did not go into the merits as to whether the recruitment is statewide or zonalwise basis, but only on the basis that respondents 1 and 2 herein were also selected and their antecedents were already verified, they are also entitled to be considered on par with others. Under such circumstances, the O.A. was disposed of directing the authorities to consider the appointment of respondents 1 and 2 herein for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor in the existing vacancies based on their selection. Mere selection of respondents 1 and 2 herein does not confer any right to claim appointment, but the Tribunal itself has made a very cautious order directing the writ petitioners to consider the case of respondents 1 and 2 as per the selections already made in the existing vacancies. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the Order passed by the Tribunal, except making it clear that it is always open for the writ petitioners to verify the present vacancy position and may consider the case of respondents 1 and 2 herein for appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, if feasible and they are otherwise eligible, as per the selections made in the recruitment of 1994 and as per law. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) June 19, 2008 ____________ (C.V. RAMULU,J) Office to furnish CC in one week. (B.O.) prk