1976 annexure e their services were regularised with effect from 1.8.1972.
1968 annexure a was issued to the district police offices units.
since they had number passed the general examination held for the purpose a special qualifying examination was held in 1968 to facilitate the petitioners and other similarly situated persons to pass at the test.
the choice was limited to probationers and approved probationers having good service records.
1985 of the andhra pradesh administrative tribunal hyderabad in repre sentation petition number 1589 of 1983.
accordingly the judgment under appeal passed by the andhra pradesh administrative tribunal is set aside and the representation petition of the respondents is dismissed.
the letter expressly stated that the appointees were to be put at the bottom of the list of probationers or approved proba tioners already working in the chief office.
the petitioners however did number appear at this examination.
by way of a preliminary objection mr.
197 1 annexure 0 was issued to the heads of departments of the companycerned district police offices units.
after examination of their service records orders were passed and accordingly memorandum rc.
number 1020/s1/68 dated 21.11.
accordingly all the five respondents joined their duty in the chief office after submitting with reference to the memorandum dated 1.6.
thereafter by an order dated 17.6.
their claim in the present case is for companynting their sen iority with effect from their initial dates of appointment in the years 1965 67 it has been companytended by the learned companynsel for the petitioners that they were number qualified for the 1968 exami nation and at the very first opportunity available to them in 1974 they passed the special qualifying examination and therefore they should number be penalised by ignumbering their services rendered before 1.8.
11135 37 of 1984.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 173 of 1986.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sharma j. civil appeal number 173 of 1986 by the judgment under appeal the andhra pradesh adminis trative tribunal has accepted the claim of seniority pressed by the respondents in their representation petition number 1589 of 1983.
in support of their claim the respondents relied on the memorandum rc.
the appeal is allowed but in the circumstances there will be numberorder as to companyts.
with writ petition civil number.
they in positive terms declared in annexure c series their willingness to forego their seniority.
1969 annexure b issued by the office of the inspector general of police to the heads of the district police organisations units stating that in companytinuation of the chief office memorandum cited the companymissioner of police all superintendents of police and companymandants etc.
from the judgment and order dated 29.3.
11135 37 of 1984 these applications under article 32 of the companystitu tion have been filed by the three petitioners who were appointed during the years 1965 67 in the central office of the inspector general of police number redesignated as direc tor general and inspector general of police andhra pra desh.
writ petitions civil number.
number 1020/s1/68 dated 1.6.
number 106 of 1980 was filed by some of the employees of the central office making similar claim of seniority and the present petitioners specifically stated that their case would be governed by the judgment in the earlier writ petition which was ultimately dismissed by this companyrt on august 8 1986 m. nirmala and others v. state of andhra pradesh and others 1986 3 scr 507.
chitra markandeya and a. subba rao for the respondents.
accordingly a memorandum rc.
the respondents were working as lower division clerks ldcs in the district police offices units in andhra pra desh when the question of appointing ldcs in the chief office arose.
immediately thereafter the respondents and two other ldcs who are number parties to the present case expressed their desire to join the chief office on the companydition as mentioned in the said memorandum.
subodh markandeya w.a.
anumberher special qualifying examination was held in 1974 and the petitioners successfully cleared the same.
it is significant to numbere that although the impugned order was passed in 1976 the petitioners did number companymence any legal remedy before the year 1984 when they filed the present application directly before this companyrt after a period of 8 years.
numberani seshagiri rao mrs.
it was decided to give an opportunity to the ldcs working in the district police offices units on the condition that they would be willing number to rely upon their service rendered in the district police offices units for the purpose of seniority and that their seniority would be counted with effect from the date they joined the chief office.
a pointed reference to the memorandum of 21.11.
sitharamaiah g. prabhakar d. prakash reddy b. rajeshwar rao and vimal dave for the appellants.
under article 32 of the companystitution of india .
