Judgment :- V.V.S. Rao, J. The petitioner was unsuccessful before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.02.2012 in O.A.No.629 of 2011 passed by the learned Tribunal, he is before this Court. The brief undisputed fact of the matter is as follows. In pursuance of the recruitment notification issued by the State Level Police Recruitment Board (SLPRB) for the posts of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC) (Civil) (A.R.) (APSP) (Men), the petitioner applied in the year 2008. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. He was qualified. He also cleared the physical tests. He was provisionally selected, subject to verification of records, antecedents and medical examination. But, the Chairman of the SLPRB cancelled his provisional selection. The reason was that during the antecedents’ enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in Cr.No.141 of 2002 for the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, (IPC) of P.S. Naidupet in which he committed rape on a minor girl and was involved in a criminal act of mortal turpitude. Aggrieved by the cancellation of provisional selection, the petitioner filed O.A.No.4992 of 2009 in which he sought for a direction to extend the benefit of the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 07.02.2009. Be it noted by the said order, the Government issued special relaxation to appoint selected candidates of the recruitment notification, who suppressed information with regard to their previous employment as required under Rule 3(G) of the Andhra Pradesh Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 (the Special Rules, for brevity), subject to certain conditions. By that time, the petitioner was admitted in a criminal case being C.C.No.166 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur. Taking this into consideration, the learned Tribunal passed orders on 12.08.2010 in favour of the petitioner directing the respondents to pass fresh orders regarding his selection. Thereafter, the Chairman of SLPRB reconsidered the matter and rejected the case of the petitioner. In the order being Memorandum, dated 06.09.2010, the Chairman gave the following reasons. … During antecedents verification of the applicant it came to light that he was involved in a criminal case, Cr.No.141/02 u/s.376 IPC of Naidupet P.S. in which he committed rape on a minor girl and he involved in a criminal act of moral turpitude. He was arrested in this case and has faced trial. … During antecedents verification of the applicant it came to light that he was involved in a criminal case, Cr.No.141/02 u/s.376 IPC of Naidupet P.S. in which he committed rape on a minor girl and he involved in a criminal act of moral turpitude. He was arrested in this case and has faced trial. Subsequently, the case ended in acquittal on technical grounds due to witnesses not supporting the prosecution. The acquittal of the candidate cannot be termed as clean acquittal. … … Whereas the case of the applicant is quiet different from their cases, his case was not considered in view of Rule 12(1)(a)(ii) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996; Rule 3(F) of A.P. Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 issued in G.O.Ms.No.315 Home (Pol.C) Department dated 13.10.1999 read with G.O.Ms.No.97 Home (Legal.II) Department dated 01.05.2006, as he is involved in a heinous criminal case and his character and conduct was not found satisfactory for the selection. Hence, his case cannot be compared with those cases and does not deserve for the extension of similar benefit, granted in favour of 627 candidates. … The petitioner again approached the learned Tribunal by filing O.A.No.629 of 2011. Therein he contended that in view of the acquittal in criminal case, reliance placed on Rules 3(F) and 3(G)(vi) of the Special Rules is unjust and violative of the Fundamental Rights and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended that even in cases of conviction, all offences do not involve moral turpitude. The O.A. was opposed by the respondents contending that the petitioner was an accused in a criminal case involving moral turpitude and therefore the order of the Chairman rejecting his candidature is justified. A reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chief Secretary v. Susheel Kumar (1996) 11 SCC 605 ). The learned Tribunal considered the question as to whether the respondents were justified in disqualifying the petitioner for appointment to the post of SCTPC (Civil)(Men) in the light of Rule 12(1)(a)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (the General Rules, for brevity) and the Special Rules. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was an accused in a rape case involving moral turpitude, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is justification for disqualifying him for the post of Police Constable. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was an accused in a rape case involving moral turpitude, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is justification for disqualifying him for the post of Police Constable. The other issue as to whether the petitioner was placed similarly on par with those who got the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 07.02.2009, was held against the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No.166 of 2005 and therefore Rules 13(F) and 13(G) of the Special Rules are not attracted. She would urge that when the petitioner was charge-sheeted, he was aged 17 years and for one act of impertinence at such a tender age, he cannot be permanently debarred from seeking public employment guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. For this purpose, she would rely on Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar (2011) 4 SCC 644 ). She also relies on an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Varadhi Dasu (W.P.No.30378 of 2010, dated 30.03.2010). The General Rules govern gazetted and non-gazetted posts under State Government and apply to the State under Subordinate Services and holders of temporary or permanent posts. Rule 12 of the General Rules stipulates the qualifications as well as disqualifications for direct recruitment. Rule 12(1)(a)(ii) of the General Rules is to the effect that no person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment, unless he satisfies the selection authority as well as appointing authority, inter alia, that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. Rule 12(4)(d) of the General Rules disqualifies a person who has been convicted by Court of law for an offence involving moral turpitude. Rules 12(1)(a)(ii) and 12(4)(d) of the General Rules read as under. 12. Qualifications for direct recruitment:-(1)(a) No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the selection authority as well as the appointing authority, that: (ii) his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service; (i)(iii), (iv) and (v) are omitted 12. 12. Qualifications for direct recruitment:-(1)(a) No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the selection authority as well as the appointing authority, that: (ii) his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service; (i)(iii), (iv) and (v) are omitted 12. (4)(d):No person who has been dismissed from a State or Central Government service or from the service of Central or State Government undertaking or local or other authorities or who has been convicted by a Court of law for an offence involving moral turpitude shall be eligible for appointment to any State or Subordinate Service. As per Rule 1(d) of the General Rules, if any provision in the General Rules is repugnant to the provisions in the Special Rules applicable to any particular service in regard to any specific matter, the latter shall in respect of such service and such specific matter prevail over in these Rules. Thus, if there is nothing in the Special Rules, it is only a person, who is convicted by the Court for an offence involving moral turpitude, shall be ineligible for appointment. Otherwise, even if a person is involved in a criminal case, but he is acquitted, it is not disqualification. To that extent, the legal position is not denied. We, however, hasten to add that having regard to Rule 12(1)(a)(ii) of the General Rules, it is always open to the appointing authority to reject the candidature of a person if the character and antecedents are such as to disqualify such a person for public service. We may mention that whatever may be the case, no person has a right to seek public employment and the right extends only to participate in the selection process under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. It is always open to the appointing authority to deny appointment by withdrawing a notification at any stage in the recruitment process before the actual joining of the person in public service. This legal position is also not denied. At this stage, we may refer to the Special Rules which were promulgated under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India governing Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub-Inspectors, Reserve Sub-Inspectors, Women Sub-Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors etc., and also Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constables. The Rules originally promulgated vide orders in G.O.Ms.No.315, dated 13.10.1999, were amended by G.O.Ms.No.97, dated 01.05.2006. At this stage, we may refer to the Special Rules which were promulgated under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India governing Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub-Inspectors, Reserve Sub-Inspectors, Women Sub-Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors etc., and also Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constables. The Rules originally promulgated vide orders in G.O.Ms.No.315, dated 13.10.1999, were amended by G.O.Ms.No.97, dated 01.05.2006. Para 3-A of the Special Rules stipulates the qualifications for various categories, whereas Para 3(F) and 3(G) speak about “Antecedents Verification” and “Disqualification for Appointment”. These are quoted below. 3(F) Antecedents verification: No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the selection authority as well as the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. 3(G) Disqualification for appointment: The candidates falling under the following categories shall be disqualified for appointment, under these rules. (i) Suppression of material facts (either in the application form or in the attestation form). (ii) If the candidate himself or through his relatives or friends or any other has canvassed or endeavoured to enlist extraneous support whether from official or nonofficial sources for his candidature. (iii) A person (a) who has entered into or contracted a marriage with a person having a spouse living, or (b) who, having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with lany other person. Provided that the State Government may, if satisfied that such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such person, exempt any person from the operation of this rule. (iv) A person who has been dismissed from the services of a State or Central Government or from the service of any Central or State Government undertaking or local body or other authority. (v) A person who has been convicted for any offence in any court of law. (vi) A person who is involved in an offence involving moral turpitude. As noticed supra, the General Rules do not disqualify a person unless such person is convicted for any offence in a Court of law. Rule 3(G)(v) of the Special Rules is also to the same effect. But the Special Rules further introduced another item of disqualification namely “a person who is involved in an offence involving moral turpitude”. As noticed supra, the General Rules do not disqualify a person unless such person is convicted for any offence in a Court of law. Rule 3(G)(v) of the Special Rules is also to the same effect. But the Special Rules further introduced another item of disqualification namely “a person who is involved in an offence involving moral turpitude”. When the Rule making authority treated those persons who were convicted for any offence in a Court of law and those persons who were involved in an offence involving moral turpitude differently, it must be held that involvement in an offence involving moral turpitude is sufficient to make a person ineligible. In such a case even if a person is acquitted for an offence in any Court of law, it does not preclude the appointing authority from denying public appointment to such a person. Therefore, even though Rule 12(4) (d) of the General Rules makes only a person convicted by a Court of law for an offence involving moral turpitude ineligible, by reason of Rule 3(G)(i)(vi) of the Special Rules, even if a person is involved in an offence involving moral turpitude, the appointing authority can deny the appointment. Further, such a view is not inconsonance with Rule 12(1)(a)(ii) of the Special Rules which as noticed supra makes it clear unless and until such person satisfies the selection authority that his character and antecedents qualify him to such service, he is not eligible for appointment to the service. Sandeep Kumar was one of the candidates who applied for the post of Head Constable. In the application he was required to furnish the particulars of convictions by Court as well as disqualifications for debarment by Service Commission. He denied having involved in any such matters, though he was involved in a criminal case under Section 325/34 IPC which was compromised. In the test, he qualified for the post of Head Constable. He then filed attestation form where he disclosed about his involvement in a criminal case. After issuing show cause notice, the competent authority cancelled his candidature. He was unsuccessful before the Central Administrative Tribunal, but succeeded before the High Court. In the appeal, the Commissioner of Police found fault with the conduct of the candidate in not disclosing about his involvement in the criminal case. Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed as under. 8. After issuing show cause notice, the competent authority cancelled his candidature. He was unsuccessful before the Central Administrative Tribunal, but succeeded before the High Court. In the appeal, the Commissioner of Police found fault with the conduct of the candidate in not disclosing about his involvement in the criminal case. Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed as under. 8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At this age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature as manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. 12. It is true that in the application form the respondent did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified. At any event, it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the matter. … We are not able to draw any support to the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel before us. Indeed, the Supreme Court itself observed that they disbelieved the wisdom in taking a lenient view because “youth often commits indiscretions which are often condoned”. But on a careful reading of the judgment, we are convinced that the Supreme Court condoned the lapse on the part of Sandeep Kumar because “it was not such a serious offence like murder, dacoity or rape” and hence a more lenient view should be taken in the manner. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner was tried for the offence of rape and he was disqualified in accordance with Rule 12(1)(a)(ii) of the General Rules and Rules 3(F) and 3(G)(i)(vi) of the Special Rules. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by reason of the order of the Chairman of SLPRB, the petitioner now stands debarred from seeking public employment. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by reason of the order of the Chairman of SLPRB, the petitioner now stands debarred from seeking public employment. She placed before us various analogies; a convict is disqualified to contest selection only for a certain period of time and after disqualification period, he is still eligible to contest the selection. As it is a question purely in the academic interest, we leave it open to the authorities to issue any appropriate proceedings. We, however, are not able to accept the submission that the petitioner is debarred permanently. Subject to the exercise of sound discretion by any appointing authority, the petitioner would be still eligible to seek public employment, provided he shall satisfy all the conditions as to qualifications. The writ petition, subject to the above observations, as also miscellaneous petition, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.