Judgment B. Prakash Rao, J. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I and Sri A.Sreedhar, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No.1. At their request, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for hearing and is disposed of at the interlocutory stage. This Writ Petition is filed, at the instance of the State and the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, aggrieved by the order in O.A.No.4314 of 2008, dated 28.01.2010, on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, allowing the application of the first respondent, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a declaration that the action of the second petitioner in not sending him for three months pre-promotional training course of Head Constables (Civil), 2008 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, that to direct the second petitioner to send him for pre-promotional refresher training course of Head Constables (Civil) 2008, by including his name in the list of P.Cs/O.S. Head Constables of Visakhapatnam City, that to promote him as a regular Head Constable, in case of his successful passing of necessary examination, and that by extending the benefit of the orders in O.A.No.3268 of 1992 and batch, O.A.No.7990 of 1996, and O.A.No.3738 of 2008 dated 30.04.1994, 21.09.1999 and 08.05.2008. Brief facts, which gave rise to the present lis, are that the first respondent, who is the applicant before the Tribunal, is working as a Head Constable on out of seniority basis in the 4th Town Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam. He was initially appointed as a Police Constable (Civil) on 08.07.1989 and temporarily promoted as the Head Constable on out of seniority basis on 03.10.1994. His grievance is that even though several other Head Constables were sent for training, he was not sent for training on the ground that he was temporarily promoted and, therefore, such action is bad and illegal. The second petitioner herein contested the claim of the applicant before the Tribunal stating that the applicant was temporarily promoted as the Head Constable and belonged to 1989 batch and, at present, it is only the Police Constables belonging to 1984 batch were sent for training and that there are many seniors, who are yet to undergo training. The second petitioner herein contested the claim of the applicant before the Tribunal stating that the applicant was temporarily promoted as the Head Constable and belonged to 1989 batch and, at present, it is only the Police Constables belonging to 1984 batch were sent for training and that there are many seniors, who are yet to undergo training. It is also stated that there is no proper infrastructure and facilities available for the purpose of giving training and there exists no vacancies to send all the police personnel for training. The Tribunal, considering the material on record, did not accept the version of the petitioners herein and allowed the O.A. directing them to sent the applicant for three months refresher training course for the Police Constables fit to act as Head Constables in the ensuing batch. Hence the Writ Petition by the petitioners. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I would contend that having regard to the practical difficulties where there is no possibility of affording training facilities and, more so, when seniors to the applicant exist, that it is only the Constables belonging to 1984 batch are being sent for training, the applicant belonging to 1989 batch has no right to seek a direction to sent him for three months pre-promotional refreshers training course of Head Constables and, thus, the Tribunal was not justified in directing the petitioners to sent the applicant for training. Learned Counsel for the first respondent would contend that having regard to the fact that the applicant was already promoted as the Head Constable on 03.10.1994, there is no question of denying him such training, which is being imparted to other Head Constables. In view of the above submissions, the point that arises for consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to be sent for training. There is no dispute of the fact that the applicant was initially appointed as a Police Constable on 08.07.1989 and he was temporarily promoted as a Head Constable on 03.10.1994. There is also no dispute of the fact that the Constables of 1984 batch were sent for training. Admittedly, the applicant belongs to 1989 batch and that there are seniors to the applicant, who are yet to undergo training. There is also no dispute of the fact that the Constables of 1984 batch were sent for training. Admittedly, the applicant belongs to 1989 batch and that there are seniors to the applicant, who are yet to undergo training. Be that as it may, the fact remains that, if at all training is afforded to a particular cadre, it should necessarily be extended to all such persons forming part of the said cadre. There is no question of drawing a line or distinguishing or making discrimination among themselves. The aspects, as to the absence of infrastructure and facilities for training, have to be taken care of by the State Government. That itself again cannot be a ground for denying the training as the State has provided sufficient premises and facilities for the academic activities of all the police personnel and, certainly, steps could as well be taken for providing infrastructural facilities, if warrants exigency. However, we are not inclined to accept that such training is being extended to persons, who are not entitled to. It is not the case of the petitioners that any Head Constable can be denied training irrespective of their appointment whether temporary or regular. As many seniors to the applicant and the police personnel belonging to the earlier batches exist, the State Government had to look into and take care of the situation and come forward with necessary facilities for providing training. In view of the same, we hold that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the O.A. Hence, I do not find any merits in the Writ Petition. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I pointed out that there are several similarly situated persons to that of the applicant, who are yet to be sent for training. It is needless to mention that apart from the applicant herein, all such persons in the same cadre, who are entitled to undergo training has to be necessarily provided all such facilities and send for training. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.