ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. ( 1 ) AGAINST the proposed action of the respondents to corporatize the Special protection Force constituted under The andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force act, 1991 (Act 25 of 1991), this writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the first respondent has no legal and constitutional competence or authority and to declare that it is beyond the legislative competence and executive powers of the State and to further declare that the provisions of the Companies Act or other provisions cannot enable the respondents to corporatize which is repugnant to the provisions of the constitution of India. ( 2 ) IT is averred in the affidavit that the petitioners herein are all members of the andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force. Apart from independent recruitment, the petitioners and other employees of the protection force are among BSF, CRPF, ITBP and Assam Rifles all coming under Central police Organisations under the Ministry of home Affairs, Govt. of India; that they joined the Special Protection Force in the background of the assurance that their service conditions would under no circumstances be changed to their detriment. Section 4 of the Act deals with the appointment of Director General of the force and other higher officials, while Sec. 7 of the Act speaks that the Director General shall be the Principal Administrative Officer of the force for overall control of the State. Section 5 of the Act empowers the Director general or any Authorized Officer to enroll members of the force in the manner prescribed; while Sec. 9 of the Act permits him for deputation of the force subject to the general conditions of the Government for protection of establishments, institutions, autonomous bodies, Industrial undertakings and assets or strategic vital installations which are not owned or controlled by the central Government on recovery of charges. ( 3 ) SECTION 10 deals with power to arrest without warrant while Section 11 deals with power to search without warrant. Section 12 prescribes the procedure to be followed by the members of the force after arresting a person while Sec. 15 speaks that the members of the force shall be considered to be always on duty and are liable to be employed at any place either within the state or outside. It is the case of the petitioners that the functions under Secs. It is the case of the petitioners that the functions under Secs. 10 and 11 of the Act are basically the exercise of sovereign power and only be exercised by a member of Armed Forces, like whom the petitioners and the members of their force carry arms and ammunitions to discharge their duties to protect the citizens and their property; that such sovereign powers cannot be transferred to a private citizen or a member of the Company or a Corporation, which is unconstitutional. It is further their case that even the Parliament or the legislative Assembly cannot legislate a law in this behalf as it is beyond their legislative competence under the Constitution, more particularly under List-II of 7th Schedule. The State Legislature having regard to List II - State List under 7th Schedule item No. 2 passed Act 25 of 1991. ( 4 ) IT is further stated that the Inspector general of SPF, 2nd respondent here in an interview, positively stated that the corporatization is no long an imagination, but it has already taken a shape and may come into existence at any time. Coinciding with the above interview, the 2nd respondent while deputing the personnel for training in the proceedings dated 6-4-2001 has pointed out that after the completion of training, they will be appointed in the equivalent cadre of constable in the Andhra Pradesh Special protection Force Corporation and the appointment will be governed by corporate service rules and the services will not be regarded as Government service. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED of the proposed action of the respondents to corporatize the Special protection Force, the petitioners came with this writ petition. ( 6 ) IN response to the Rule Nisi, issued by this court, the Principal Secretary to the government, Home Department, filed counter-affidavit denying material allegations. It is stated that an idea of setting up a separate entity, which could provide protection not only to the Government properties and installations but also private sector deserving such protection, was mooted and was under the examination of the Government, which would also provide some financial savings to the Government. The respondents denied that as on to-day no (sic. a) firm decision was taken by the government, but a suggestion was under consideration to float a Government company which is fully owned by the State government to look after these matters. The respondents denied that as on to-day no (sic. a) firm decision was taken by the government, but a suggestion was under consideration to float a Government company which is fully owned by the State government to look after these matters. It is also the contention of the respondents that the functions of the State can be carried out through various instrumentalities, that the essential services like supply of electricity, transport, etc. , are being handled by statutory Corporations and Government companies all over the country and they fall under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, to contend in general terms that the entrustment of Government functions to a Corporation is per se illegal and unconstitutional is not tenable. ( 7 ) IT is also contended that the writ petition is premature. As a matter of caution, when the recruitment of 591 personnel was made, they were informed that they are required to undertake to serve in the corporation, if and when such Corporation is set up. It is also contended that if any adverse decision is taken, which impinges the services of the members of the Force, the proper forum to agitate such grievance is a. P. Administrative Tribunal, which is competent to deal with all the legal and constitutional issues. It is contended that when the petitioners did not challenge the validity of Act 25 of 1991, they cannot equally challenge the powers of the State government to set up an Armed Force, more particularly in view of the fact that entry "public Order" and "police" figure as entries 1 and 2 in the State List and therefore, the State has all the powers to legislate on all matters which relate for the maintenance. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners that the powers under Secs. 10 and 11 of the Act 25 of 1991 cannot be delegated or entrusted to a Corporation is concerned, it is submitted that there is no such ban and -a right exists for all the citizens subject to limitations of relevant laws. It is further submitted that the personnel drafted from Central Police Organisations are capable of fighting their cause, if really they sustain any injury and that the petitioners need not espouse their cause. It is further submitted that the personnel drafted from Central Police Organisations are capable of fighting their cause, if really they sustain any injury and that the petitioners need not espouse their cause. It is further submitted that the apprehension that the special Protection Force is reduced to a private force is misconceived, that it intends to make the origanization available for the protection of the private sector to a greater extent than what is provided under Act 25 of 1991. Contending so, the respondents sought for to dismiss the writ petition. ( 8 ) WHILE admitting the writ petition on 18-4-2001, this court directed that if there is any threat to any of the petitioners of their being converted as Corporate Employees, they would be at liberty to approach this court with appropriate application. This court, again on 16-5-2001 ordered for status quo as on that day. Since there was no vacate petition moved by the respondents and counter was also filed, having regard to the submission of the learned Government pleader for Home that there is no immediate threat of converting the petitioners as corporate Employees, the writ petition was heard. ( 9 ) IN the backdrop of these facts, sri Rama Mohan Rao, N. , the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that immediately after the creation of the Force as per Act 25 of 1991, the first respondent through his letter no. 28240/po. D 91-4 dated 7-3-1992 requested the Secretary, Ministry of Home affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, to depute officers and men from Central Police organisations on permanent basis by transfer to the A. P. S. P. F. , Hyderabad, instead of on deputation basis to fill up vacancies of various ranks and in response to the said request made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the services of about 250 personnel from BSF, CRPF, ITBP and Assam rifles which are all Central Police organisations were spared to work as members of the A. P. S. P. F. and in addition to the above personnel, the State Government also recruited independently within the state from time to time. Therefore, when under a separate enactment the State government has established a separate entity under Act 25 of 1991, which is in force, the intention and purport of corporatizing such an entity will jeopardize the interests of the members of the force besides being contra to the intent of the Legislature in enacting Act 25 of 1991. In this regard, the learned counsel has also taken me to the various provisions of the enactment. ( 10 ) HE further submitted that Section 3 of the Act deals with the constitution of the force while Sec. 4 contemplates with appointment of Director General of the force and other higher officials who shall have and may exercise such power and perform such duties as may be prescribed. Secs. 5 and 6 empowers the Director General and other Supervisory Officers, as may be authorized by the State Government to enroll members of the force in the manner prescribed and grant of certificate in the prescribed form. Section 7 places the director General as the Principal administrative Officer of the force, but subject to the overall control by the government, while Sec. 8 enumerates the duties of the members of the force. Sec. 9 permits deputation of force subject to the general direction of the Government for protection of establishments, institutions, autonomous bodies, industrial undertakings and assets or strategic vital installations which are not owned or controlled by the central Government on recovery of charges. ( 11 ) EMPHASIZING the powers under section 10 of the Act, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when members of the force found a person trespassing on the premises of any industrial undertaking, etc. , he may, without prejudice to any other proceeding which may be taken against him, be removed from such premises, without any order from a magistrate and without a warrant. He further contends that the rights enumerated for search, under the Code of Criminal procedure, shall also apply to the members of the force. Thus under the Act, when the members of the force enjoy such powers and functions, Corporatizing the entity created under Act 25 of 1991 amounts to its abrogation and it is wholly unconstitutional. He further contends that the rights enumerated for search, under the Code of Criminal procedure, shall also apply to the members of the force. Thus under the Act, when the members of the force enjoy such powers and functions, Corporatizing the entity created under Act 25 of 1991 amounts to its abrogation and it is wholly unconstitutional. ( 12 ) HE further contended that without constituting the so called Corporation, the issuance of proceedings No. A1/56/spf/2001 G. O. No. 317/2001 dated 6-4-2001 by the second respondent informing the selected candidates by virtue of notification r. C. No. Al/158/spf/2001 dated 21-3-2001, that after successful completion of nine months training, they will be appointed in the equivalent cadre of constable in Andhra pradesh Special Protection Force corporation, that their appointment in andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force corporation will not be regarded as government service; that on their appointment in Andhra Pradesh Special protection Force Corporation Limited, they will be paid pay and allowances applicable to the Corporation Employees and they are not entitled for any benefits in pay with the government employees and also calling upon them to give an undertaking in the prescribed format on a non-judicial stamp duly signed by two Government employees as witnesses, is illegal, contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and offending principles of natural justice inasmuch as the recruits are not known under what Regulations and Service conditions they are appointed and are performing their duties and thus they are kept in dark. He further submitted that the personnel who were appointed to the force and gave such an undertaking under the said proceedings, have done so under compelling circumstances under an imminent threat that they will not get jobs and thus the undertaking is not voluntary and is not enforceable. For all these reasons, the action of the respondents in corporatizing the force is liable to be set aside. ( 13 ) ON the other hand, Mr. T. Anantha babu, the learned Advocate General, while reiterating the contentions raised in the counter-affidavit submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as premature as no firm decision of any kind was taken by the Government and the matter was not considered by the Cabinet as yet. He further submitted that in any event, the interests of the petitioners are very much protected. He further submitted that in any event, the interests of the petitioners are very much protected. He further submitted that the matter pertains to the recruitment of the government servants, as such the subject matter of the writ petition is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India, alternatively, the A. P. Administrative Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to entertain the lis. He further submitted that the Government has got the power to Corporatize the Force and the entrustment of governmental functions to a corporation per se is not illegal and this power of the Government enlisted in list - II, Schedule 7, item No. 2, and therefore, cannot be challenged under article 226 of the Constitution. ( 14 ) FROM the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General, first I deal with the objection taken by the learned advocate General with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. The subject matter of the writ petition pertains to the selection and appointment of stipendary constables in proposed A. P. Special protection Force Corporation Limited and consideration of the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent through proceedings A1/56/spf/2001 G. O. No. 317/2001 dated 6-4-2001 and the format of bond to be executed by the selected candidates. The Parliament has enacted administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals act, 1985 deals with jurisdiction, powers and authority of State Administrative tribunal. It reads:" (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the administrative Tribunal for a State shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court), in relation to: (A) recruitment, and matter concerning recruitment to any civil service of the State or to any civil post under the State: (B ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) The State Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of subsection (3) to local or other authorities and Corporations, or Societies, controlled or owned by the State government: provided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the administrative Tribunal for a State shall also exercise, on and from the date with effect from which the provisions of this sub-section apply to any local or other authority or corporation, or society, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that date by all the courts, except the supreme Court, in relation to: (A) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation or society; and (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 15 ) SUB-SECTION (2) of Sec. 15 obligates the state Government by notification to apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of sub-section (3) to local or other authorities, corporations or Societies, controlled or owned by the State Government. Evidently, as on to-day, the Corporation is not created and it is not in existence. Therefore, the government notifying the extension of the jurisdiction of the A. P. Administrative tribunal, Hyderabad, to the services of the said Corporation and the petitioners approaching the Administrative Tribunal does not arise. Perhaps the respondents and the Law Officers associated with the learned advocate General did not bring this provision of law to the notice of the learned advocate General before raising the objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. Therefore, this contention of the learned Advocate General cannot be countenanced. Perhaps the respondents and the Law Officers associated with the learned advocate General did not bring this provision of law to the notice of the learned advocate General before raising the objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. Therefore, this contention of the learned Advocate General cannot be countenanced. Therefore, I hold that unless it is notified under Sec. 15 (2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, by the government, the A. P. Administrative tribunal has no jurisdiction to enter into the above subject matter of writ petition. Therefore, the only course open to the aggrieved parties is to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india for redressal of their grievance. ( 16 ) COMING to the second contention of the learned Advocate General that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as pre- mature is concerned, the answer given by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the selected personnel, as per the notification, are directed to serve in the proposed A. P. Special Protection Force corporation Limited, by executing a bond to that effect, in a non-existing Corporation which is unconstitutional and unknown to services of the petitioners. But during the course of arguments, when specific question was put to the learned Advocate General that the 2nd respondent was appointed under Sec. 4 of the Act and he has not issued the impugned order, under the provisions of the Act and what are the sources of power to issue such impugned order, he has stated that there is no source of power to issue the said proceedings dated 6-4-2001. When the actions of the 2nd respondent are subjected to the overall control of the Government, it is not known, before issuing such a proceeding whether he has taken prior approval of the government under Sec. 7 of the Act. It is true that when the Corporation itself is not created and no Rules and Regulations are framed, the 2nd respondent, sri Ramachandraiah, the then Inspector general, APSPF, assumed the powers of the government itself and issued the impugned order. But as can be gathered from the material placed before this court, the government has taken a decision to create the Corporation and a notification, to that effect, has to be issued. But according to the 2nd respondent, the Corporation was created by the Government in the year 2001. But as can be gathered from the material placed before this court, the government has taken a decision to create the Corporation and a notification, to that effect, has to be issued. But according to the 2nd respondent, the Corporation was created by the Government in the year 2001. There is contradiction in the statements of both the Government and 2nd respondent with regard to creation of alleged corporation. For any reason the alleged a. P. S. P. F. Corporation Limited was created, it was not made known to the public, more particularly the new recruits as stipendary constables, perhaps on the apprehension that the validity of the constitution of corporation may be assailed in a court of law. This new trend of taking decisions without notifying or communicating to the public and affected parties, developed by the Administrators, in recent times, depriving them to test the validity of such decisions by the public or to seek redressal of their grievance by the affected parties, cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, I hold that this type of tendency of the administrators, like that of the 2nd respondent herein, in preventing the affected parties from approaching a court of law for the redressal of their grievances or by the public, has to be deprecated, in the larger interest. For all these reasons, the 2nd respondent cannot issue an order proposing to recruit the personnel under A. P. Special protection Force Corporation Limited. Therefore, the actions of the 2nd respondent are ultra vires the powers conferred upon him, under Sec. 7 of the Act and run contra to the intent of the Legislature in enacting act 25 of 1991. Therefore, it can be viewed that the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent are without power and jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside. Therefore, it can be viewed that the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent are without power and jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside. ( 17 ) THEREFORE, if that is the case, the 2nd respondent lacks jurisdiction to issue such a proceedings and thus the entire exercise made by him in respect of the new recruits in informing them that they willbe placed in equivalent cadre of constable in the A. P. Special Protection Force Corporation limited, and their services will not be regarded as Government service and they will be paid pay and allowances as applicable to the Corporation employees, is wholly illegal and unsustainable in law, visa-vis the undertaking bond to be furnished by the recruits on a non-judicial stamp of rs. 10/ -. These actions of the 2nd respondent in respect of a non-existing corporation are illegal and unconstitutional offending Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. It is pertinent to note that article 16 (3) of the Constitution of India deals with appointment to an office under the Government or any local or other authority within the State or Union territory. Therefore, it can be said that because of non-creation of the Corporation, there is no employer-employee relationship between the respondents and the Stipendary constables, in the A. P. S. P. F. Corporation limited, under the notification, which falls under the phrase appointment to an office as contemplated under Article 16 of the constitution. Before making the selection, the State Government should have created the office in which the Stipendary constables have to be appointed. As such the phrase appointment referred to, in a non-existing office, is illegal. The word appointment refers to appointment to an office and therefore implies the conception of tenure, duration, emoluments, obligations and duties fixed by law or some rule having the force of law. Therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent is in utter violation of article 16 of the Constitution of India. ( 18 ) EVIDENTLY, the 2nd respondent, who is an authority under the Act 25 of 1991, has exercised his power from an unborn corporation keeping the new recruits in dark as to their service conditions and the undertaking bonds that were obtained are nothing but under compelling circumstances in threat of losing their jobs. ( 18 ) EVIDENTLY, the 2nd respondent, who is an authority under the Act 25 of 1991, has exercised his power from an unborn corporation keeping the new recruits in dark as to their service conditions and the undertaking bonds that were obtained are nothing but under compelling circumstances in threat of losing their jobs. Therefore, when once the respondent is not able to convince this court as to the source and authority of law under which the above said impugned proceedings are issued, the entire exercise done by the 2nd respondent is without power and can be held to be unconstitutional, illegal and against the settled canons of service jurisprudence and the provisions of Act 25 of 1991. ( 19 ) THE State Legislature under List-II under Schedule 7, under item No. 2, has enacted Act 25 of 1991 and the members of the force have to discharge the sovereign functions of the State. Therefore, the executive orders issued by the 2nd respondent, dated 6-4-2001 cannot govern the field when the Act 25 of 1991 is in vogue, more particularly when it is not demonstrated before this court that such executive instructions trace their origin to any provision of law. It is also not out of place to mention that when the State government is winding-up the corporations one after the other for non-viability, I failed to understand under what circumstances, the respondents thought of corporatizing the A. P. S. P. F. As can be seen from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, they intend to extend the services of the Force for the protection of properties and installations of deserving private sector, besides Government, and with a view to provide some financial savings to the Government, the idea of creating A. P. S. P. F. Corporation Limited was mooted. But the respondents have failed to give details except a bald statement in the counter-affidavit and the learned Advocate general also has not placed any material in support of the said idea. If that is the case, the force which was created by Legislative enactment 25 of 1991 under Item No. 2, schedule 7 of List - II, with the objectives extracted in the foregoing paragraphs viz. If that is the case, the force which was created by Legislative enactment 25 of 1991 under Item No. 2, schedule 7 of List - II, with the objectives extracted in the foregoing paragraphs viz. , to provide protection and security of government Treasuries, Institutions owned and controlled by the State and also to provide protection and security to the autonomous Bodies, Establishments, institutions, Industrial Undertakings and the Employees of all such Industrial undertakings and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Therefore, providing the services to the industrial undertakings, etc. , is also one of the objectives of the Enactment and thus the force is functioning within the legislative enactment, giving a go-by to the legislative intent and creating a corporation under the company Law, defeats the very purpose of enactment. If the Government wants to extend the services to the Private Sector, as contemplated under the objects and reasons, it should have suitably amended the Act extending the services of the Force to the private Sector, instead of destroying the force functioning under a competent legislative enactment and creating the corporation under the Companies Act is against the spirit of the Constitution, and is detrimental to the interest of the public at large. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the entire exercise made by the respondents for future operation, without creating the corporation as on to-day and directed stipendary constables, by virtue of the impugned order dated 6-4-2001 of 2nd respondent to serve in the proposed A. P. Special Protection Force Corporation limited, executing an undertaking bond to that effect is keeping the personnel in midhya. It is common knowledge that the government should have created the corporation in the first instance and framed the Service Conditions, Rules or Regulations with regard to the conception of tenure, duration, emoluments, duties and obligations as contemplated under Art. 16 of the Constitution and made known to the public before going for recruitment. Time and again, this court and the Apex Court have cautioned that the Government should not act as private employers, but it should act as a Model Employer to its subjects. Time and again, this court and the Apex Court have cautioned that the Government should not act as private employers, but it should act as a Model Employer to its subjects. As I have decided to set aside the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent as without power and illegal, therefore, I do not deem it appropriate to go into the legislative competence of the State government for creating the A. P. Special protection Force Corporation Limited under schedule VII of the Constitution. ( 20 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I hold that the impugned proceedings No. A1/56/ spf/2001 G. O. No. 317/2001 dated 6-4-2001 and the format of the undertaking bond, issued by the 2nd respondent are liable to be struck down, on the ground of lack of power and jurisdiction, as they are issued under a proposed A. P. Special Protection Force corporation Limited, which is not in existence, as it is offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the settled principles of service jurisprudence and are accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed but without costs. Consequently, there shall be a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to enroll the selected candidates pursuant to the notification Rc. No. Al/158/spf/2001 dated 21-3-2001 as per the provisions of Act 25 of 1991, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.