JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-These appeals involve common point of dispute and, therefore, are disposed of by this judgment, which shall govern each one of them.

2. 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. A batch of 32 original applications was disposed of by a common order, The applicants in some of those moved the High Court as Tribunal had rejected their applications. They are respondents in Civil Appeals 3618, 3619, 3620, 7206 to 7209, 7080, 7394 and 7395/2000. Six others had filed a joint petition before the Tribunal. They are respondents in Civil Appeal No.4949/2000.

3. Factual position is almost undisputed and needs to be noted in brief:-

The respondents in these appeals were appointed as Constables along with several others, total number being 732. 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 ). One of the conditions 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. 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 completion of the training, they were to be posted at different places to work as Constables. In the appointment order it was clearly indicated that they should undergo ten months basis training. 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. Said orders of termination were challenged on the ground that said Rules were not applicable to them as they had passed the SSC examination with Telugu as medium of instruction. They were exempted from passing the Language test under Rule 14 and as such the orders of discharge were bad, As this plea was not accepted, the respondents moved applications before the Tribunal. The basic question raised was whether the applicants were required to pass  the language test prescribed under Rule 13-A (a)(ii) of the General rules. Reference was made to Rule 14 of the said rules to claim the exemption. The Tribunal upheld the order of dismissal taking note of the stand pressed into services by the State and its functionaries that they had not successfully completed the 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 down under Rule 11 and 2(a) of the Special Rules, there was a requirement to successfully complete the training, as the Constables, who were trainees. Their dismissal was claimed to be in order. 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. Orders of the Tribunal were challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court which by the consolidated impugned orders held that the orders of dismissal were not tenable, since the concerned Constables had passed SSC examination in Telugu medium with Telugu as one of the subjects. Therefore, they were entitled to exemption and the order of discharge was bad. It was held that the order of appointment did not refer to any other test in which the selected recruits were required to come out successful and, therefore, the orders of discharge were bad.

4. In support of the