(Per Ghulam Mohammed, J.)

Since the common questions of law involved in these two writ petitions, they are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order.

2. These writ petitions are filed seeking writ of Certiorari to quash the common order dated 29.12.2006 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in OANos.141 0 and 1004 of 2006 and batch and to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector with consequential benefits.

3. All the applicants including the petitioners herein have approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to declare that they are fully eligible and qualified to be appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in A.P. Transport Department and to direct the respondents to consider their case and appoint them in the said post.

4. It is stated that all these applications are directed against the selection process of Motor Vehicle Inspectors, which is undertaken by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in pursuance of Notification NO.13 of 2004 on various grounds. While the O.As., are pending interim orders came to be passed on 9.03.2006 directing the respondents to permit them for medical re-examination and other consequential tests for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector but not to announce the results of the applicants pending further orders.

5. The contention of the petitioners applicants in the present O.As., was that they are holding Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from various institutions. They challenged the rule, which prescribes Diploma In Automobile Engineering as minimum qualification for direct recruitment as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors and excluding Diploma holders in Mechanical Engineering, which is in fact prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Act, and also prescribing Diploma in Mechanical Engineering as qualification for appointment by transfer. They contend that such treatment is arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

6. The A.P. Public Service Commission filed counter affidavit contesting the applications. But the State has not filed any counter affidavit in spite of providing sufficient opportunity. The stand of the A.P. Public Service Commission IS that the Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India prescribe minimum qualification as Diploma in Automobile Engineering; that the State has a right to prescribe the qualifications and the same cannot be challenged; that the said stand was also upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; and that it is neither discriminatory nor arbitrary or unreasonable and there are no valid grounds.

7. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following points for consideration.

1. Whether the Hyderabad city is a separate and free zone under the Presidential Order?

2. Whether tile applicants in O.A.Nos.270, 1387 and 1927 of 2006 who acquired Heavy Vehicle licence after the Notification can be considered for selection?

3. Whether prescribing minimum physical measurements for candidates for the post of assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector is not lust and valid?

4. Whether the physical fitness examination was conducted In a defective manner?

5. Whether prescribing same measurements to the ladies and gents for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector is bad under law?

6. Whether failure to provide reservation to the ladies is bad under law?

7. Whether disallowing the candidates possessing Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and prescribing only Automobile Diploma IS just and valid?

8. The Tribunal on Point No.7 held that in view of the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that excluding the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering as one of the minimum qualifications cannot be held to be bad under law. Therefore, rejection of applications on the ground that they are only possessing Diploma in Mechanica