It is number known how the petitioners have been discriminated against other persons because numbersuch person is impleaded as a respondent and there are numberallegations to that effect.
97 of 1976.
Though the reappointment of the incumbent was in the Semi Govern ment Institution, his re appointment was stated to be irreg ular and companytrary to the intention of the Government in retiring companyrupt and inefficient persons.
Ramchandra Rao and B. Kanta Rao for the appellants in W.P. No.
This order stated first that the said first peti tioner companypleted 25 years of qualifying service on 24th July, 1975.
Rao, Sr.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. These writ petitions challenge the companypulsory retirement of the petitioners.
The order next stated that the Commissioner of Police being the authority to make a substantive appointment to the post of Inspector of Police is of opinion that it is in public interest to retire the persons mentioned in the order.
114/76.
Advocate and V.S. Narasimhachari, for the respondents in W.P. No.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
114/76.
Parmeshwara Rao, and G. Narayana Rao, for respond ents in W.P. No.
97 of 1976 may be referred to as typical of orders in the case of other peti tioners.
The 28 November, 1975 order next states that an instance came to the numberice of the Government that a Government servant after companypulsory re tirement as per orders mentioned above was re appointed in a companyperative institution as executive officer.
97/76.
The petitioners were retired companypulsorily under order dated 23 September, 1975.
Ramachandra Rao and ,A. Subba Rao, for the appel lants in W.P. No.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh passed a general order dated 28 November, 1975.
The order dated 23 September 1975 in the case of the first petitioner in writ petition No.
97/76.
