C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

These cases have a considerable litigious background which needs to be explained in brief. For convenience, the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 26877, 26975 and 27219 of 2017 are referred to as the petitioners and the State and its functionaries are referred to as the respondents.

2. The petitioners are working as Police Constables. In pursuance of the Notification dt.30.12.2008 issued by the respondents inviting applications from eligible candidates inter alia for filling up the posts of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil)(Men), Reserve Sub-Inspectors of Police (AR)(Men) and Reserve Sub-Inspectors of Police (APSP)(Men), the petitioners and some others made their applications. The extant rules provided for social reservations and also special reservations in favour of categories of Police Executive (PE), Police Ministerial (PM), Meritorious Sports Person (MSP), Children of Police Personnel (CPP), Children of Police Personnel who died or have been incapacitated on medical invalidation (CDI) and National Cadet Corps (NCC). Assailing the selection process, six unsuccessful candidates have filed six separate O.As., i.e., O.A. No. 8346 of 2011 and batch before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal). The grievance of the applicants therein was that while considering the meritorious candidates falling under social (communal) reserved categories, they were adjusted in the posts earmarked for special category. In other words, the respondents have followed the method of horizontal reservation, instead of following the method of vertical reservation for special category reservations. Following the ratio in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission AIR 2007 SC 3127, the Tribunal held that the method of vertical reservation has to be followed in respect of special category reservations, i.e., by filling up the vacancies first with all O.C. category (meritorious candidates), thereafter with the candidates falling under social reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes etc., and thereafter the posts falling under special reservations have to be filled up. The Tribunal rendered a specific finding that the respondents have not followed this procedure and that the same is contrary to the extant rules and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria (1 supra). The Tribunal further held that the respondents contrary to the aforesaid judgment have first filled up the posts with the candidates with higher merit in OC quota and thereafter straightaway filled up the vacancies falling under special reservations and thereafter remaining candidates were appointed in the respective social reservations. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the O.As. directing the respondents to accommodate all the applicants in special reservation quota as per their merit, accommodating the unofficial respondents in their social reservations as per their merit, by recasting the selection list and issue appointment orders to the applicants therein as per their merit. The Tribunal further observed that as already six vacancies were ordered to be kept vacant by way of interim orders, the respondents shall accommodate the applicants in those six vacancies without disturbing the selections and appointments already made.

3. The petitioner in W.P. No.27219 of 2017 filed O.A. No.2367 of 2012 claiming identical relief as in the batch of the six O.As. referred to above. Similarly the petitioner in W.P. No.26877 of 2017 filed O.A. No.10372 of 2011 and the petitioner in W.P. No.26975 of 2017 filed O.A. No. 2306 of 2012. O.A. No.10372 of 2011 was allowed by order dt.21.11.2012 by the Tribunal, following the Order in O.A. Nos.8346 of 2011 and batch, dt.10.02.2012; and O.A. No.2367 of 2012 was allowed by order dt.19.3.2014 by the Tribunal, by following the two orders in the aforementioned OAs. While allowing these O.As. the Tribunal directed the respon