P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THESE Batch of Writ Petitions are filed by the unsuccessful applicants in O. A. No. 7526/2003 and Batch on the file of Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal, in short referred to as tribunal" hereinafter. The writ petitioners/applicants in the O. As. are Sub-Inspectors of Police who were recruited in the year 1991 in pursuance of notification by the A. P. State Level Police Recruitment board, in short hereinafter referred to as "board", dated 12-1-1991 issued for 70 vacancies of Civil Sub-Inspectors in Zone IV and 5 Reserve Sub-Inspectors in Zone VI. The applicants commenced training on 15-7-1991 and were appointed as Sub-Inspectors and had completed probation and became eligible for promotion too. It is stated that these applicants are governed by A. P. Police (Civil) Subordinate Service Rules notified in G. O. Ms. No. 1263, dated 26-8-1959 and by Special Rules notified in g. O. Ms. No. 374, Home Department, dated 14-12-1990. The details of the five methods of recruitment also had been narrated. In the notification dated 22-1-1991 issued by the board it was specified that 7% of the vacancies were reserved for Police executives, 4% to Municipal staff and 2% to meritorious Sportsmen and the rule of reservation also was specified. For 70 civil posts, select list was prepared and two of the individuals who were selected subsequently resigned while undergoing training and two others had not joined at all. Thus, 66 candidates had completed the training. One candidate Munuswamy did not complete the training and did not participate in the examination for personal reasons and it is stated that he was allowed to complete the training along with 1992 batch by taking up the examination at the end thereof. It is also the stand taken by the writ petitioners/applicants in the O. As. that respondents selected 10 more candidates from out of 1991 list and they were sent for training in 1992 along with the said Munuswamy who had commenced training on 14-6-1992 and subsequent to the completion of the training they were also appointed for the regular posts of Sub-Inspectors. Specific stand was taken that 1991 trainess were kept above in the seniority and 1992 batch trainees were kept below while reckoning the seniority. Specific stand was taken that 1991 trainess were kept above in the seniority and 1992 batch trainees were kept below while reckoning the seniority. However, while considering these cases for promotion to the next higher category, certain un-official respondents herein and similarly placed persons raised dispute by filing O. A. No. 5165/2002 on the file of the tribunal praying for a relief that both these batches 1991 and 1992 are to be treated as a homogeneous group and also prayed for a direction to prepare a combined c list of sub-Inspectors based on the provisions contained in Rule 15 of the Special Rules. The Tribunal in the said O. A. No. 5165/2002 directed the applicants to make a detailed representation to the Director General and inspector General of Police with a further direction to the Director General and inspector General of Police to dispose of the representation before making any promotions to the posts of Inspectors Police in Zone IV. In consequence thereof, the government passed an order on 17-3-2003 in Memo No. 3119/legal. 1/2003-1, clarifying that the delay in sending the candidates for training occurred due to wrong calculation of vacancies and hence they are also entitled to seniority on par with 1991 batch Sub- inspectors on the basis of the marks obtained by them at the examination conducted by the Police Training College especially in the light of Rule 15 of the special Rules. The Director and Inspector general of Police in the light of the memo dated 17-3-2003 referred to supra, called upon the writ petitioners to submit their objections for the proposed action of revising the seniority. In such circumstances, the writ petitioners filed the O. As. questioning the decision of the Government in the said memo dated 17-3-2003 and the consequential order dated 26-12-2003 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of police, Kurnool Range fixing the combined seniority list of Sub-Inspectors of 1991 and 1992 batches. The Tribunal by the common order dated 24-9-2004 ultimately arrived at a conclusion that the O. As. were devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed and allowed the V. M. A. Aggrieved by the said common order, the present Writ Petitions are filed. ( 2 ) SRI Nuty Ram Mohan Rao, Sri Navin rao, Ms. The Tribunal by the common order dated 24-9-2004 ultimately arrived at a conclusion that the O. As. were devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed and allowed the V. M. A. Aggrieved by the said common order, the present Writ Petitions are filed. ( 2 ) SRI Nuty Ram Mohan Rao, Sri Navin rao, Ms. Vijaya Lakshmi and sri V. V. N. Narayana Rao, Counsel representing the writ petitioners, sri C. V. Mohan Reddy, Sri P. Suresh reddy, Sri Meher Chand Noorie, Sri Subba rao and Sri Venkata Sastry, Counsel representing the unofficial respondents and government Pleader for Services-I, were heard. ( 3 ) WHILE leading the arguments, on behalf of the writ petitioners, Sri Nuty Ram Mohan rao, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners made the following submissions. These submissions were adopted by the other learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners. The learned counsel traced the historical background of this litigation commencing from the date of recruitment, training, completion of probation and had pointed out that out of 75 candidates, 66 candidates were permitted to join the Training College. The writ petitioners belong to 1991 batch and they are on top of 35. The learned Counsel clearly demonstrated that on the merit ranking by virtue of the present altered seniority list, sub-Inspectors of 1992 Batch also are shown to be seniors and Sub-Inspectors of 1991 Batch at certain places are shown to be juniors depending upon the marks obtained in separate examinations. The learned Counsel pointed out to the Rules 3, 7, 10 and 11 in general and Rule 15 of the special Rules in particular and also pointed out to the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel also would contend that the reason given in the proceedings dated 17-3-2003 that it was due to the wrong calculation of the vacancies also is not the correct reason. The learned Counsel stressed on the aspect that common stock of notification has nothing to do with the reckoning of the seniority. The proviso to rule 15 is of one time operation and after a long lapse of time, seniority already fixed cannot be disturbed and even otherwise the state Government also has no power to review. The learned Counsel stressed on the aspect that common stock of notification has nothing to do with the reckoning of the seniority. The proviso to rule 15 is of one time operation and after a long lapse of time, seniority already fixed cannot be disturbed and even otherwise the state Government also has no power to review. Elaborate submissions were made to convince the Court that in the light of the several aspects, the training, commencement of probation and the completion thereof and in several other aspects, the batches being different, they cannot be treated alike for the purpose of reckoning the seniority. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court in detail the order made in O. A. No. 5165/2002. The Counsel would maintain that the proviso being a one time operation it does not depend upon the completion of the next batch of training, certain instances like the appointment of sri K. Ravimohanachary and certain others also had been pointed out. The learned counsel also made elaborate submissions that in relation to the order of the State government dated 17-3-2003 which would involve civil consequences affecting the rights relating to seniority of the writ petitioners, they were not put on notice and subsequent notices would be of no consequence since the appointing authorities have no authority to over-ride the memo issued by the Government and hence the subsequent notices issued in this regard may have to be treated as an empty formality. The Counsel also had pointed out to certain of the conflicting findings. Ultimately the Counsel would conclude that the marks obtained in different examinations cannot be treated alike and on the strength of such marks obtained in separate examinations, seniorities cannot be disturbed which would cause serious prejudice to the writ petitioners. At any rate, the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice and hence the order of the tribunal cannot be sustained. ( 4 ) AS already referred to supra, the other counsel representing the writ petitioners in these Batch virtually had adopted the submissions of the Counsel referred to supra, who had led the Batch. At any rate, the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice and hence the order of the tribunal cannot be sustained. ( 4 ) AS already referred to supra, the other counsel representing the writ petitioners in these Batch virtually had adopted the submissions of the Counsel referred to supra, who had led the Batch. ( 5 ) PER contra Sri C. V. Mohan Reddy had placed strong reliance on Pilla Sitaram patrudu and others v. Union of India and of thers and would contend that in a similar fact situation, an order of this nature made by the Government was upheld by the Apex court. The learned Counsel would point out that although the source of recruitment is one, the two batches of trainees had been due to lapse on the part of the administration or a lapse relating to wrong calculation of the vacancy position and the said problem arising out of such miscalculation and the subsequent illegality had been rectified in the light of the proviso to Rule 15 of the Special rules. The Counsel also would maintain that this being fixation of inter-se seniority relating to one selection, consideration of rule 3 or Rule 10 of the Special Rules would fall into insignificance. This may be a lapse or it may be due to the lapse on the part of the Government and absolutely there are no laches on the part of the un-official respondents. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Tribunal a representation was made and the Government was satisfied that the seniority be finalized in the light of the proviso to Rule 15 of the Special Rules and accordingly the orders which had been impugned in the O. As. had been made. The learned Counsel also pointed out the reasons recorded by the Tribunal at paras 41, 42 and 43 and in the light of the just and convincing reasons, this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the constitution of India need not disturb such findings. had been made. The learned Counsel also pointed out the reasons recorded by the Tribunal at paras 41, 42 and 43 and in the light of the just and convincing reasons, this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the constitution of India need not disturb such findings. ( 6 ) SRI Suresh Reddy, the learned counsel representing certain of the unofficial respondents had pointed out that the government is the rule making authority and it is futile on the part of the writ petitioners to contend that the Government cannot rectify any injustice which had been done in the preparation of the seniority list and in pursuance of the direction made by the tribunal and in pursuance of the representation the Government had in accordance with law in the light of Rule 15, proviso, of the Special Rules and the issuance or non-issuance of the notice relating to internal correspondence would be inconsequential and at any rate, at appropriate stage, the writ petitioners were put on notice and there is substantial compliance and observance of the principles of natural justice. The learned Counsel representing the un-official respondents in the Batch of Writ Petitions virtually had adopted the submissions made by sri C. V. Mohan Reddy and Sri Suresh reddy in this regard. ( 7 ) THE learned Government Pleader for services-l had explained under what circumstances, the Government had issued the memo which had been questioned in the o. As. and for internal Departmental correspondence, the Counsel would maintain that no notice is required but however at appropriate stage notice was given and objections were called for and hence it is futile on the part of the writ petitioners to contend that the impugned orders questioned in the O. As. are to be quashed for want of compliance of principles of natural justice. The Counsel also pointed out relating to Zone-IV all had been finalized and relating to Zone-VI the same has not been finalized yet. The Government Pleader also had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit where all the aspects had been narrated in detail. ( 8 ) HEARD the Counsel and perused the material available on record. The Counsel also pointed out relating to Zone-IV all had been finalized and relating to Zone-VI the same has not been finalized yet. The Government Pleader also had taken this Court through the contents of the counter affidavit where all the aspects had been narrated in detail. ( 8 ) HEARD the Counsel and perused the material available on record. ( 9 ) IN view of the fact that the factual matrix being common and questions involved also being common, all these Writ petitions are being disposed of by this common Order especially in view of the fact that the Writ Petitions arise out of common order made in the batch of the O. As. aforesaid. ( 10 ) THE specific stand taken by the writ petitioners is that the Board conducted recruitment in the year 1991 for the posts of sub-Inspectors of Police in various Zones and in the said selections, the petitioners were selected. The notification dated 22-1-1991 is intended to make recruitment for 75 civil Sub-Inspectors of Police and 5 reserve Sub-Inspectors of Police in Zone vi. Out of the total number of 75 vacancies, 35 were earmarked for open competition. In the select list, the first 35 candidates according to ranking had been adjusted against open competition vacancies and the select list further contains the selected candidates against various groups as per rule of reservation. 5 vacancies had been earmarked to Police Executive as per the quota and accordingly 5 candidates had been selected. 3 in-service ministerial staff were selected against 3 vacancies meant for police Ministerial category and against one vacancy for Sportsmen quota, one candidate was selected. Thus, the total selection was made for all the 75 posts. In the select list prepared by the Board, the writ petitioners had been ranked high and consequently they were selected and appointed as Sub- inspectors in Zone VI against O. C. vacancies. Only 65 candidates reported for training on 15-7-1991. In terms of the provisions governing the recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspectors, every Sub-Inspector on appointment commences probation and is required to undergo training for a period of 9 months in the Police Training college. On appointment, they were sent for training which commenced on 15-7-1991. Only 65 candidates reported for training on 15-7-1991. In terms of the provisions governing the recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspectors, every Sub-Inspector on appointment commences probation and is required to undergo training for a period of 9 months in the Police Training college. On appointment, they were sent for training which commenced on 15-7-1991. On successful completion of the training, they were required to pass an examination conducted by the Police Training college and on passing the examination, the writ petitioners were sent to 6 months field training. On successful completion of the field training their probation was declared and were assigned regular duties as Sub- inspector. It was averred that the writ petitioners have outstanding record of service and are now eligible for promotion to the next higher post of Inspector of Police. It was also averred that by the proceedings dated 14-2-1992, the 10 non-joined vacancies were filled up by the candidates who could not come up for selection in the final selection. It was also averred that there is no waiting list maintained by State Level police Recruitment Board and these 10 candidates were sent for training in subsequent batch which commenced training on 14-6-1992 and along with them 4 candidates belonging to Police Executive and 2 candidates belonging to sports quota were also appointed and sent for training. ( 11 ) IT was also further averred that recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of police is governed by A. P. Police (Civil) subordinate Service Rules notified through g. O. Ms. No. 1263, dated 26-8-1959 which were replaced by a new set of Special Rules notified through G. O. Ms. No. 374, Home (Police. C) Department dated 14-12-1999 and the post of Sub-Inspector is organized to fall in Category-l of Class-A of the said rules. Rule 11 (a) of the old Rules speaks of necessity to undergo training and examination that follows during the period of probation and the Table under Rule 11 (a) indicates the course of training that is required to be undergone. Rule 15 of the old rules and the corresponding Rule 10 of the new Rules deals with Seniority. Rule 15 (a) of the Special Rules prescribes that seniority is required to be prepared based on the date of appointment. Rule 15 of the old rules and the corresponding Rule 10 of the new Rules deals with Seniority. Rule 15 (a) of the Special Rules prescribes that seniority is required to be prepared based on the date of appointment. Proviso to Rule 15 (a) of the special Rules prescribes that in case all the probationers commence probation and training on a single day, the seniority is required to be determined based on the aggregate of marks obtained by each probationer on completion of training in police Training college and the ranking assigned at the time of initial selection has no bearing in determining the seniority. At the time of passing out of a batch of sub-Inspectors, the Police Training College determines the ranking of the candidates based on the marks secured by them and this ranking determines the seniority inter se. It was further averred that based on the representation submitted by the Sub- inspectors of Police belonging to Zone IV the government passed final order in Memo no. 3119/legal. 1/2003-1, dated 17-3-2003 specifying certain reasons and in pursuance of the decision of the Government the consequential memo No. 663/e-HR/2003 dated 9-4-2003 had been issued by the deputy Inspector General of Police, hyderabad Range fixing the combined seniority of 1991 and 1992 batches and the same were questioned by way of the batch of O. As. referred to supra wherein the writ petitioners had been unsuccessful. ( 12 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents sworn to by the Deputy inspector General of police, Hyderabad range, Hyderabad it was averred the Board conducted recruitment in the year 1991 for the posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police in various Zones including Zone-VI Hyderabad (1) 950384 J. Venugopal (2) 950810 B. Sailoo (3) 950919 G. Venkateshwar Reddy (4) 950531 B. Srinivas Reddy (5) 950763 P. Srinivas Reddy (6) 950516 K. Newton (7) 950961 Ch. Sriranganath (8) 951096 M. Laxman (9) 950951 B. Shivadhar Reddy b. Shivadhar Reddy it was further averred in para-3 of the counter affidavit that out of 66 candidates sent for training one candidate G. Vishnu vardhan Reddy, Admn. No. 951044 did not report for training and only 65 candidates had turned up for training on 15-7-1991. The 65 candidates were appointed on probation for a period of two years on duty in range. No. 951044 did not report for training and only 65 candidates had turned up for training on 15-7-1991. The 65 candidates were appointed on probation for a period of two years on duty in range. According to the notification dated 22-1-1991, 75 posts of Sub-Inspectors (Civil) and 14 posts of Reserve Sub-Inspectors were notified. Out of the total number of 75 vacancies, 35 were earmrked for open competition and accordingly in the select list, the first 35 candidates were adjusted against open competition vacancies and the select list further contains the candidates selected against various groups as per rule of reservation. 5 vacancies were earmarked to police Executive as per the quota and accordingly 5 candidates were selected. 3 in-service ministerial staff were selected against 3 vacancies meant for Police ministerial Category and against one vacancy of Sportsmen quota, one candidate was selected. Thus, the total selection was made for all the 75 posts. The petitioners were selected against open competition vacancies. Out of 75 candidates selected for the posts of 66 Sub-Inspectors, 66 candidates had been sent for training. The remaining 9 selected candidates could not be sent for training for various reasons stated as hereunder came to adverse notice. Criminal cases were booked against them and they had suppressed this information in their application forms. Sent for medical check up but not attached for medical examination medically not fit as they are colour blindness not submitted agreement bond, medical bond, medical certificate etc. continuation period of three years. The candidates are required to pass all the examinations conducted by the Police training College and their probation was declared on completion of their period of probation successfully. They are eligible for promotion only after completion of 6 years of service as Sub-Inspectors as per A. P. Police subordinate Service Rules 1966. Their inter se seniority is fixed under Rule 15 (a) of A. P. Police Subordinate Rules as per the Police training College marks. After selection by the SLPRB, 10 vacancies arose for the reasons stated supra. In this regard, the slprb, through the memorandum, filled the 10 vacancies and sent the selection list as follows to send them for training vide dgp, A. P. Hyderabad Memorandum no. 115/randt/sc-1/91, dated 14-2-1992 (1) (a) Admn. No. 950951-B. Sivadhar reddy (OC) has not been issued with appointment orders, as he has not submitted agreement bond and medical fitness certificate. In this regard, the slprb, through the memorandum, filled the 10 vacancies and sent the selection list as follows to send them for training vide dgp, A. P. Hyderabad Memorandum no. 115/randt/sc-1/91, dated 14-2-1992 (1) (a) Admn. No. 950951-B. Sivadhar reddy (OC) has not been issued with appointment orders, as he has not submitted agreement bond and medical fitness certificate. (b) In his place Admn. No. 951329 -P. Narayana (BC-B) has to be brought on to OC List. (c) Consequently, in his place Admn. No. 950811 -S. Ashok Kumar - BC-B has to be accommodated afresh in bc-B Group. (2) (a) Admn. No. 9509191-G. Venkateshwar Reddy (OC) has not been issued with appointment orders as he has not attended medical examination. (b) In his place Admn. No. 950429-N. Venkataramana - BC-D has to be brought on to OC list. (c) Consequently, in his place Admn. 950536 - T. Govardhan (BC-D) has to be accommodated afresh under bc-D group. (3) (a) Admn. No. 951044-G. Vishnuvardhan Rao - (OC) has not reported for training. (b) In his place Admn. No. 950828 -U. Ravinder Reddy (OC) has to be accommodated afresh under Open competition. (4) (a) Admn. No. 950961- Ch. Sriranganath - (OC) has not reported before the medical board. (b) in his place Admn. No. 950978-N. Narsimha Reddy (OC) has to be accommodated afresh under open competition. (5) (a) Admn No. 951096 - M. Laxman (BC-D) figured under OC group has not reported before medical board. (b) In his place Admn. No. 950991-B. Anand (BC-D) has to be brought on to OC list. (c) Consequently, in his place Admn no. 951259 - B. Anjaiah (BC-D) has to be accommodated afresh under bc-D group. (6) (a) Admn. No. 950763 - P. Srinivas reddy (OC) has not appeared before Medical Board. (b) In his place Admn. No. 951077-Md. Fazlur Rehman, (BC-B) has to be brought on to OC list. (c) Consequently, in his place admn. No. 950812 - B. Bhaskar (BC-B) has to be accommodated afresh under (BC-B) Group. (7) (a) Admn. No. 950531-B. Srinivas Reddy - (OC) has not attended for Medical Test. (b) In his place Admn. No. 950171 c. R. Rameswar (BC-D) has to be brought on to OC list. (c) Consequently, in his place admn. No. 951162 - CH. Sudhi kumar (BC-D) has to be accommodated afresh unde (BC-D) group. (8) (a) Admn. (7) (a) Admn. No. 950531-B. Srinivas Reddy - (OC) has not attended for Medical Test. (b) In his place Admn. No. 950171 c. R. Rameswar (BC-D) has to be brought on to OC list. (c) Consequently, in his place admn. No. 951162 - CH. Sudhi kumar (BC-D) has to be accommodated afresh unde (BC-D) group. (8) (a) Admn. No. 950516 - K. Newton (SC figured in O. C. list has not reported before Medical Board. (b) In his place Admn. No. 950409-V. Ravi Kumar - (BC-B) has to be brought on to O. C. list. (c) Consequently, in his place admn. No. 950017-A. Venkateswarlu (BC-B) has to be accommodated afresh under BC-B group. BACKWARD CLASS- d GROUP vacancies-I (9) (a) Admn. No. 950384 - J. Venugopal - b. C. (D) has not been appointed due to adverse intelligence report. (b) In his place Admn. No. 950655 -N. Venkateswarlu (BC-D) has to be accommodated afresh under (BC-D) group. IN SERVICE POLICE MINISTERIAL service VACANCIES-1 1. (a) Admn. No. 950810 - B. Sailoo (SC) has not been appointed due to adverse report. (b) No Ministerial candidates are left over in the merit list. Hence this vacancy has been carried over to open competition. (c) In his place Admn. No. 951029 -CH. Srinivas, OC has to be accommodated afresh under carried over OC vacancy. As such the contention of the writ petitioners that the above 10 candidates are the left over candidates is incorrect. The above 10 candidates were appointed in the existing vacancies only and the remaining 6 candidates were appointed in Police executive, Police Ministerial and Sportsmen quota but not in non-joining vacancies as commented by the writ petitioners. Further specific stand was taken that Rule 15 (a) of the Special Rules prescribes that seniority be prepared for those appointed on the same date basing on the marks obtained in the Police Training Colleges. As per the said rule 15 (a) the marks of the Police Training college are criteria for preparation of the seniority list of the candidates where the candidates are appointed on the same date and undergone training in the same batch. But the above six vacancies were filled up due to the technical lapses for wrong calculation of the vacancies. As per the said rule 15 (a) the marks of the Police Training college are criteria for preparation of the seniority list of the candidates where the candidates are appointed on the same date and undergone training in the same batch. But the above six vacancies were filled up due to the technical lapses for wrong calculation of the vacancies. As such all the above individuals are entitled to get seniority along with the 1991 batch of Sub-Inspectors by interspersing them at their rightful places by taking Police Training College marks into account, as this delay, being an administrative one, cannot be attributed to the individuals, but to the administration. As per the Government Memo No. 3119/lega-1/2003, dated 17-3-2003 with Chief Office endt. No. 33/e1/2002, dated 24-3-2003 all the above candidates were selected from the 1991 recruitment list and they were sent for training in the year 1992. Further specific stand was taken by the Government that as per Government Memo dated 17-3-2003 the government directed the appointing authority to merge the two batches of Sub-Inspectors who were appointed in the year 1991 and 1992 into one and assign a combined seniority basing on the marks obtained by the Police Training College. The said two batches were appointed under one notification issued in the year 1991. The sub-Inspectors of 1992 batch vacancies were not the non-joined vacancies as no appointment orders were issued to them. The same were the existing vacancies of 1991 batch and after merging the Sub- inspectors of 1991 and 1992 batches and preparation of the combined list, the question of issuing the notices to the affected persons would not arise. It was further averred that no c list was prepared in the year 1998 up to the batch of Sub- inspectors of 1985 batch of Hyderabad city. As per the directions of this Court in which combined seniority list of 1991 and 1992 batches of Hyderabad City and Hyderabad range was prepared in the year 2003 and communicated to the individuals vide memorandum No. 663/e1-56/hr/2003, dated 9-4-2003 of DIG, HR, Hyderabad. As per the directions of this Court in which combined seniority list of 1991 and 1992 batches of Hyderabad City and Hyderabad range was prepared in the year 2003 and communicated to the individuals vide memorandum No. 663/e1-56/hr/2003, dated 9-4-2003 of DIG, HR, Hyderabad. It was also stated though it is a fact that as per rule 15 (a) of the Special Rules seniority list was prepared as per the marks of the Police training College only but in this case as per the Government Memo dated 17-8-2003 the sub-Inspectors of 1991 and 1992 batches were merged and the combined seniority list of Sub-Inspectors of Hyderabad City and hyderabad Range was prepared and communicated to the individuals. As such, both the batches come under one batch. Thus a specific stand was taken that due to wrong calculation of the vacancies this problem arose and the mistake which had crept in had been well rectified by merging the Sub-Inspectors of 1991 and 1992 batches by preparing a combined seniority list. It was also specifically averred in para-8 of the counter affidavit that the combined list was prepared as per the directions of Government Memo No. 3110/legal-1/03-1, dated 17-3-2003, along with chief Office Endt. No. 33/e1/2002, dated 24-3-2003. The c list of Sub-Inspectors fit to act as Inspectors was prepared in the year 1998 upto the batch of Sub-Inspectors of 1985 batch of Hyderabad City. As per the court directions only, a combined seniority list of Sub-Inspectors of 1991 batch was prepared in the year 2003 and communicated to the individuals by memorandum No. 663/e1-56/hr/2003, dated 9-4-2003 of DIG, HR, Hyderabad. As per Rule 33 (a) of the Rules, the date of appointment is criterion for the preparation of seniority list of the Sub-Inspectors. When the candidates were appointed on the same date, the inter se seniority is fixed for the directly recruited Sub-Inspectors as per the marks obtained in the Police Training colleges under Rule 15 (a), but in this case, as per the Government Memo No. 3119/legal/-1/03-1, dated 17-8-2003, the Sub-Inspectors of 1991 and 1992 batches were merged and the combined seniority list of the sub-Inspectors of Hyderabad City and hyderabad Range was prepared. ( 13 ) THE Tribunal in fact had adverted to all the contentions advanced inclusive of the delay in disturbing the seniority which had already been settled. ( 13 ) THE Tribunal in fact had adverted to all the contentions advanced inclusive of the delay in disturbing the seniority which had already been settled. Before touching the other aspects, it would be appropriate to have a look at the order dated 17-3-2003 impugned before the Tribunal, which reads as hereunder government OF ANDHRA PRADESH home (SERVICES. I) DEPARTMENT memo No. 3119/legal. 1/2003-01 dt. 17-3-2003 subp. S. S. ls. (Civil) of 1992 batch appointed as per A. P. A. T. Orders - Delay in undergoing training due to administrative reasons - Clarification on fixation of seniority - Issued. Ref (1) A. P. A. T. orders in O. A. No. 5165/2002, dated 11-6-2002 and batch cases. (2) From the Director General and inspector General of Police, a. P. , Hyderabad Lr. No. 33/#1/2002, dated 21-1-2003. The attention of the Director general and Inspector General of police, Andhra Pradesh is invited to the reference cited and he is informed that all the candidates referred in the letter cited were selected from the 1991 selection list but they were sent for training in the year 1992. The delay in sending them to training occurred due to the wrong calculations of vacancies in PE, PM and SP quota by the authority concerned. As such all the above individuals are entitled to seniority along with the 1991 batch o sub-Inspectors of Police by interspersing them at their rightfu places taking PTC marks into accoun as this delay which being an administrative one cannot be attributed to the individuals but to the administration. Bharat Chandra principal Secretary to Government" it may also be appropriate to have a look at the operative portion of the order made in o. A. No. 5165/2002 which reads as hereunder"in this view of the matter, the applicants are directed to make a detailed representation to the Director general and Inspector General of police, putting forth their complete case and the Director General and Inspector genera) of Police is directed to dispose of the representation of the applicant preferably, before making promotions to the post of Inspector of Police in zone-IV. The O. A. is accordingly disposed of with the above directions at the admission stage. The O. A. is accordingly disposed of with the above directions at the admission stage. "at this juncture, it may also be appropriate to have a look at the impugned order and the relevant portion thereof wherein the Tribunal had specified at paras 56 to 59 as hereunder "the next question which arises for consideration is whether the individuals who were selected belatedly and deputed for training in the year 1992 and subjected to a separate examination at the end of the training can derive the benefit of the higher marks they obtained at the end of the examination even though, the other set of individuals who completed the training and appeared for the examination earlier were subjected to a different test. The Counsel for the applicants sri N. Rammohan Rao has vehemently argued that since the two tests conducted were in two separate years, the marks obtained there on are not comparable with each other and, therefore, it would be unfair to the appellants to rework their seniority based on such circumstances. Undoubtedly, the two sets of individuals who were deputed for training in 1991 and in 1992 were subject to different examinations. Such situation was inherent in the circumstances of the case. However, even though the examinations were held in different years, undoubtedly, they were examinations of the same standard. Therefore, it cannot be said that the marks obtained by the two sets of individuals cannot be compared for the purpose of preparing a unified list. Further, the set of individuals who took the examinations in 1992 at the end of their training had to do so on account of the erroneous calculations of vacancies made by the official respondents. Therefore, it would be unfair to discriminate them merely on the ground that they took their examinations a year latter. Therefore, this contention also cannot be accepted. There is also the case of certain individuals, who were selected against fall out vacancies as well as one individual who commenced his training but discontinued and was allowed to join along with the batch deputed in the year 1992. It is not the case of any body that these individuals did not appear at the same selection and became eligible for consideration, based on merit. It is not the case of any body that these individuals did not appear at the same selection and became eligible for consideration, based on merit. Therefore, as long as all these individuals were selected at the same recruitment, a delay either on account of commissions and omissions on the part of the authorities or due to the circumstances which were considered and adjudicated by the competent authorities, they cannot be treated as a separate batch but must be considered to be part and parcel of the same batch of recruitment. Therefore, the challenge with regard to their cases also has to fail. With regard to the question of the entire process having taken place without giving an opportunity for the applicants to be heard, it is clear from the record as well as from the averments in the o. As. , as well as in the counter affidavit that after the Government issued the impugned memo (which has already been held by the valid being a direct consequence of the judgment of this tribunal ). The authorities concerned put the applicants and others on notice, received their representations and only thereafter finalized the revised seniority list. Therefore, it must be held that the applicants were not kept in the dark and that, therefore there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. " it may also be appropriate at this juncture to have a look at the impugned order and the reasons recorded at paras 41 to 43 made by the Tribunal wherein it had been specified as hereunder "it is once again necessary to reproduce a portion of the judgment in order to understand whether the appointees who were denied the benefit thereunder are to be treated as new batch or not. "the first respondent is therefore directed to finalise the selection in accordance with the rules for the vacancies notified in each zone to be filled from among the categories (b) and (c ). . . . . . . . . . . (emphasis supplied)" from the above extract, it is clear that the authorities were to "finalise selection" as directed. Thus, the selection process of the 1991 batch can be said to have been finalized only after the above direction was complied with. . . . . . . . . . . (emphasis supplied)" from the above extract, it is clear that the authorities were to "finalise selection" as directed. Thus, the selection process of the 1991 batch can be said to have been finalized only after the above direction was complied with. Now having done so, the authorities grossly erred in treating the second group of appointees as a new batch of 1992 and placing them below the applicants in this O. A. initially. Even the impugned Government memo was issued only after the affected parties approached this Tribunal again and obtained a direction in O. A. No. 5165/2002. In view of the above position, it must be held that the impugned Government memo 3119/legal. 1/2003-1 and 17-3-2003 and the consequential action flowing therefrom cannot be found fault with and as rightly accepted in the impugned memo, the individuals cannot be made to suffer on account of the commissions, omissions and laches on the part of the Government. " ( 14 ) RULE 2 of the Special Rules deals with method of appointment and promotion. Rule 3 specifies that the General Rules for state and Subordinate Services shall apply to this service also unless a contrary intention is expressed in any rule. On the strength of this Rule, submissions at length were made and Rule 33 of the A. P. State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 dealing with Seniority had been specifically pointed out in this regard. There cannot be any serious controversy about this aspect. But however, the fact remains when the General rules and the Special Rules operate the field and when a specific provision is made in the Special Rules, the Special Rules alone would govern the field. Rule 4 of the Special rules deals with Order of discharge of probationers and approved probationers. Rule 5 of the Special Rules deals with Order of reappointment of discharged approved probationers and probationers. Likewise, rule 10 deals with Probation, Rule 11 deals with Probationers who have to undergo training and their pay, Rule 15 deals with seniority and Rule 15 (a) reads as hereunder (a) The Seniority of a person in the class or category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to lower rank as a punishment be determined by the date of his first appointment to such class or category or grade. If any portion of the service of such person does not count towards his probation under the General Rules his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of his service which counts towards probation provided that in the case of Sub- inspectors, Sub-Inspectors of Police (Intelligence) and Reserve Sub- inspectors, the seniority inter se shall be fixed on completion of training in the police Training College or with the andhra Pradesh Special Police, as the case may be, instead of at the time of selection in accordance with the list which shall be arranged in order of merit, which shall be determined in accordance with the aggregate of marks obtained by each probationer- (i) in respect of his record in the Police training College or with the Andhra pradesh Special Police, as the case may be; and (ii) at the final examination. In determining such order of merit, no account shall be taken of marks awarded to a probationer in any subject in which he has failed. But such seniority shall be liable to revision by the Deputy Inspector General of Police concerned if he considers it necessary, before completion of probation. This sub-rule shall not affect the seniority of any members of the service which may have been fixed expressly or by implication before the 19th november, 1941 or any orders as to seniority which may have been passed by competent authority before the 19th november, 1941. Submissions at length were made on the strength of the proviso and the words". . . . . . . . . shall be fixed on completion of training in the police Training College. . . . . . . . " In the light of the reasons recorded by the Tribunal which had been referred to supra, where convincing explanation had been given relating to the delay in disturbing the prior seniority and also the reasons which had been recorded, in the impugned order dated 17-3-2003, the mistake which had crept in is sought to be rectified by merging these two batches since recruitment was made under the same notification but due to some bonafide mistake and the administrative lapse, certain persons were sent to training at a prior point of time and certain persons at a subsequent point of time. These are the aspects which are made the grounds of attack on the ground that the training was completed at a prior point of time, the probation was completed at a prior point of time and hence the subsequently recruited sub-Inspectors cannot be equated with those Sub-Inspectors who were appointed prior to them for the purpose of reckoning the seniority. ( 15 ) AS can be seen from the reasons which had been recorded by the Tribunal and also the Government memo which had been impugned, in pursuance of the directions in O. A. No. 5165/2002 on the representation made, the defect had been detected and the same had been rectified and this is internal correspondence. Exactly this is the area where the Counsel representing the writ petitioners had made a serious attack on the ground that while disturbing the prior seniority list before issuing the impugned order, the writ petitioners, the affected parties, were not put on notice and this action being one involving civil consequences, definitely it would suffer the vice of being made without compliance of the principles of natural justice. Maneka gandhi v. Union of India the doctrine of post-decisional hearing was no doubt accepted in principle but only in exceptional cases. The view expressed in Swadeshi cotton Mills v. Union of India also may be referred to in this regard. It is no doubt true that the concept relating to observance of principles of natural justice is one of the essential concepts of Constitutional law which is popularly known as fair play in action, universal justice, social justice, fundamental justice or substantial justice. The principles of natural justice are easy to proclaim but their precise extent is far less easy to define. The origin of the natural justice no doubt is constantly expanding which can be traced from A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India to State of Punjab v. Tejal singh. The principles of natural justice are easy to proclaim but their precise extent is far less easy to define. The origin of the natural justice no doubt is constantly expanding which can be traced from A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India to State of Punjab v. Tejal singh. The principles relating thereto had been well settled in S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of india, Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal corporation, Institute of Chartered accountants of India v. L. K. Ratna9, t. Shepherd v. Union of India H. L Trehan v. Union of India, Charan Lal v. Union of india, Neelima Misra v, Harinder Kaur paintal, Krishnakant Raghunath bibhavnekar v. State of Maharashtra, surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India, s. K. Bhargava v. Collector, Chandigarh and the settled principles and the settled decisions in this regard are too numerous which need not be dealt with in detail. ( 16 ) THE controversial question relating to post-decisional hearing in exceptional cases and pre-decisional hearing which is a general rule also need not detain this Court any longer for the reason that the stand taken by the writ petitioners is that no doubt notices had been served and objections had been called for but at a later stage, which would be of no consequence and they should have been put on notice even prior to the impugned order being passed by the government and hence the application of the principles of natural justice is only a farce which cannot be said to be compliance in the eye of law. In the decision referred (1) supra, the Apex Court while dealing with Article 16 of the Constitution of India and also promotion and seniority, it was held that once a candidate is required to be found to be eligible according to the rules, his seniority is required to be determined as per the procedure prescribed in the rules in vogue and though a candidate was selected in 1977 as Assistant Executive Engineer by direct recruitment and yet for no fault of him he came to be appointed in 1981, he is entitled to the ranking given in the select list. ( 17 ) IN the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand and taking into consideration the historical background of the litigation, commencing from the date of notification, recruitment and the subsequent events, inclusive of the direction by the Tribunal and the representation and the consequential rectifications ultimately leading to the preparation of the present seniority list merging both the batches of trainees referred to supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respective appointing authorities had put on notice the affected parties before making the consequential orders and hence this Court is of the considered opinion that there is substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. The elaborate submissions made raising several technical objections would not weigh with this Court in view of the fact that the Government having detected the mistake though of rectifying the same by merging both the batches and drawing up the common seniority list taking the origin of selection being in pursuance of the same notification and also taking into consideration that injustice should not be done to persons sent to training at a later point of time due to the lapse of the Government. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order made by the Tribunal is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The delay in disturbing the seniority list also had been properly explained and cogent reasons had been recorded. This Court is also of the opinion that by disturbing the impugned order and by remitting the matter back again on the ground of want of notice before the government making the impugned order, no purpose would be served since the appointing authorities even subsequent thereto had put the affected parties on notice and in the light of the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reasons recorded by the Tribunal are just and proper and need no disturbance at the hands of this Court while exercising powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the light of the reasons recorded above, the Writ petitions are devoid of merit and accordingly the same shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.