C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

This Writ Petition is filed for certiorari to quash order dated 04-08-2017 in O.A. No. 1789 of 2017 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'). The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to declare that she is entitled to be deputed for Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) (Men & Women) (for short, 'SCTSIP') training on the basis of her valid selection.

2. We have heard Sri K. Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and leaned Government Pleader for Services (A.P.) and perused the record.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Woman Police Constable (Civil) in Srikakulam District on 17-08-2005. A crime was registered against her vide crime No. 53 of 2008 of II Town Police Station, Srikakulam. The said case was taken cognizance as C.C. No. 322 of 2008 for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'I.P.C.') on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Prohibition and Excise Offences, Srikakulam (for short, 'the criminal Court'). The criminal Court found the petitioner, who was accused No. 2, guilty of the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and accordingly convicted her under Section 248 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, having regard to the age of the petitioner and the other two accused, who were convicted for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C, they were ordered to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act'), on their executing a bond each for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties for the like sum. A further direction was also issued to keep them under the supervision of P. Tirupathirao, District Probation Officer, Srikakulam, for a period of one year and that in the meantime, the accused shall keep good conduct and behaviour. It appears that simultaneous with the criminal case, departmental proceedings were also initiated by framing a charge on 24-08-2011 which reads as under:

"She exhibited gross mis-conduct by involving as an accused in Crime No. 53/2008 U/s.324 r/w. 34 IPC of Srikakulam II Town P.S.".

After dismissal of the criminal case, the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam, issued proceedings vide C.No.60/P.R./2011 dated 11-01-2012, whereby he dropped further action. A perusal of these proceedings shows that the disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the judgment of the criminal Court releasing her under the Act. After closing of the departmental proceedings, the petitioner was promoted as Woman Head Constable (Civil) on 15-11-2013 and has presently been working in Central Crime Station, Srikakulam.

4. Respondent No. 3 issued notification dated 17-09-2016 inviting applications from eligible women candidates for recruitment for filling up certain posts including SCTSIP. The petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category, applied for and she cleared Preliminary Written Test, Physical Measurements Test/Physical Efficiency Test and also final Written Test and Medical Test. In pursuance of her provisional selection, vide Memo dated 28-06-2017, respondent No. 4 deputed the provisionally selected candidates for training. However, he has not included the name of the petitioner in the list of the candidates sent for training. When the petitioner approached respondent No. 3 with a representation on 30-06-2017, the latter informed her that as she was an accused in C.C. No. 322 of 2008 and convicted, she is disqualified for being appointed to the post of SCTSIP. Assailing the said action, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1789 of 2017 before the Tribunal.

5. Respondent No. 3 filed a counter affidavit in the O.A., wherein he inter alia averred that as per Rule 25 (v) of the Notification dated 17-09-2016, a person who has been convicted for any offence in any Court of law shall be disqualified for selection/ appointment. He also relied on Rule 3 (