1. Challenging the order in O.A. No. 9055 of 2013 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') dated 22-08-2014, the State filed this Writ Petition. The 1st respondent, in response to the notification issued by the State Level Police Recruitment Board, applied for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (Civil) (Men) (Post Code No. 21) (for brevity, 'SCTPCCM'). His application was accepted; he got through the tests specified under the notification and, ultimately, got selected for the said post. The petitioners called for attestation form in Annexure-I from the 1st respondent and he submitted his attestation form as required in Annexure-I on 20-09-2012. To his misfortune, the petitioners denied posting as SCTPCCM on the ground that the 1st respondent involved in a criminal case and issued proceedings in R.C. No. 528/R&T/Genl.2/2012 dated 06-11-2013.

The 1st respondent challenged denial of posting by filing O.A. No. 9055 of 2013 on the ground that he was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity, T.P.C.) in crime No. 3 of 2005 of Veldurthi Police Station by calendar and judgment dated 24-03-2006 in Sessions Case No. 503 of 2005 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, after full-fledged trial. The is respondent was arrayed as accused No. 11 and found not guilty. The acquittal was clean and honourable acquittal.

The petitioners opposed the application before the Tribunal and relied on Rule 12(1)(a)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996 (for brevity, 'the Rules of 1996') to contend that involvement in criminal case is a disqualification for appointment to the post of SCTPCCM. They also relied on the judgment of Apex Court in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, and Another vs. Mehar Singh, 2013 (6) SCJ 468: (2013) 7 SCC 685: 2013 (6) ALT 14.1 (DN SC) and prayed to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal, upon considering entire material and hearing argument of both counsel, allowed the O.A., quashing the proceedings in R.C. No. 528/R&T/Genl.2/2012 dated 06-11-2013, with a direction to the petitioners to appoint the 1st respondent to the post of SCTPCCM as per his merit in the selection process forthwith.

Aggrieved by the order in the O.A., the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition almost reiterating the grounds urged before the Tribunal. One of the major contentions of learned Government Pleader for Services (A.P.) before us is that the 1st respondent is disqualified in view of Rule 3(F) of the Andhra Pradesh (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 (for short, the Rules of 1999), issued in G.O. Ms. No. 97 of Home (Legal-II) Department dated 01-05-2006 in continuation of G.O. Ms. No. 315 dated 13-10-1999, and, in view of Rule 12(1)(a)(ii) of the Rules of 1996, no person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless his/her character and antecedents are such as to qualify him/her for such service. Thereby, the 1st respondent was found not eligible due to his involvement in S.C. No. 503 of 2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 r/w 149 of I.P.C.

Learned Government Pleader for Services (A.P.), on the strength of the principles laid down in Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and Others vs. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605; Samar Bahadur Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2011 (7) SCJ 51: Civil Appeal No. 7643 of 2011: 2012 (2) ALT 29.2 (DN SC) and Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another 2013 (6) SCJ 468: (2013) 7 SCC 685: 2013 (6) ALT 14.1 (DN SC) contended that the 1st respondent is disqualified for appointment as SCTPCCM

2. At the stage of admission, we heard argument of learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader, almost reiterating the grounds urged in the Writ Petition, contended that police force is the most disciplined force and the per