One of the companyditions stipulated in the appointment order is that they should pass the language test within a period of probation and in case of failure they shall be discharged from the service.
Their dismissal was claimed to be in order.
Orders of the Tribunal were challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court which by the companysolidated impugned orders held that the orders of dismissal were number tenable, since the companycerned Constables had passed SSC examination in Telugu medium with Telugu as one of the subjects.
They were exempted from passing the language test under Rule 14 and as such the orders of discharge were bad.
In the appointment order it was clearly indicated that they should undergo ten months basic training.
Reference was made to paragraph 10 of the manual for A.P. Recruits School and held that in view of the mandatory requirement of taking training in the recruits schools as laid sown under Rule 11 and 2 a of the Special Rules, there was a requirement to successfully companyplete the training as the Constables, who were trainees.
A batch of 32 original applications was disposed of by a companymon order.
As this plea was number accepted, the respondents moved applications before the Tribunal.
It was held by the Tribunal that the syllabus prescribed in the manual for the police recruits assumes a mandatory character and the prescriptions in the syllabus under the manual have to be followed and rightly, therefore, the orders of discharge were passed.
The appeals are directed against judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in several writ petitions by which judgments of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in short the Tribunal were set aside.
J U D G M E N T With Civil Appeal Nos.
The applicants in some of those moved the High Court as Tribunal had rejected their applications.
Six others had filed a joint petition before the Tribunal.
They are respondents in Civil Appeals 3618, 3619, 3620, 7206 to 7209, 7080, 7394 and 7395/2000.
Their services were terminated under Rule 16 f i of the A.P. State and Sub ordinate Service Rules, 1996 in short the New General Rules on the ground that they had failed to pass the prescribed test within the prescribed period of probation.
They are respondents in Civil Appeal No.4949/2000.
3619, 3620, 4949, 7206 7209, 7080, 7395 and 7394 of 2000 ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. These appeals involve companymon point of dispute and, therefore, are disposed of by this judgment, which shall govern each one of them.
Therefore, they were entitled to exemption and the order of discharge was bad.
Factual position is almost undisputed and needs to be numbered in brief The respondents in these appeals were appointed as Constables along with several others, total number being They were placed on probation for a period of three years and were also required to undergo training in the A.P. Police Recruits School under Rule 11 a of the A.P. Police Subordinate Service Rules in short the Special Rules .
Said orders of termination were challenged on the ground that said Rules were number applicable to them as they had passed the SSC examination with Telugu as medium of instruction.
This is in terms of Rule 13 A a i of the A.P. State and Sub ordinate Service Rules, 1962 in short the General Rules .
The selected candidates were sent for training to the Police Recruits School and after companypletion of the training, they were to be posted at different places to work as Constables.
