ORDER : A.V. Sesha Sai, J. In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the order, dated 09.04.2019, passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter called as 'Tribunal, in O.A.No.1712 of 2018. 2. By way of Memorandum bearing Rc.No.296/R&T/Genl.2/2017, dated 28.08.2017, the State Level Police Recruitment Board, A.P., cancelled the provisional selection of the applicant/respondent herein for the post of SCT PC (Civi1) under BC-B (Genl.) Category in Vijayawada City. Questioning the said order, respondent herein filed O.A.No.2887 of 2017 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, on 29.11.2017, allowed the said Original Application and had set aside the Memorandum referred to supra, dated 28.08.2017, of the State Level Police Recruitment Board. Against the said order passed by the Tribunal, the State carried the matter to the Composite High Court, by way of liling W.P. No. 10785 of 2018, and the Composite High Court, by way of an order, dated 03.04.2018, allowed the said Writ Petition and, while setting aside the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2887 of 2017, the respondent herein was given liberty to make a representation to the authorities concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Auatar Singh v., Union of India (dated 21.07.2016, in Special Leave Petition (C) No.20525/2011) with a further direction to the authorities to consider the same in the light of paragraph Nos.38.4 and 38.41 of the. said judgment and fixed eight "weeks' time for completion of the said exercise. Subsequently, the respondent-applicant submitted a representation on 24.02.2018. The State Level Police Recruitment Board, vide Memorandum in Rc.No.296/R&T/Genl.2/2017, dated 26.06.2018, rejected the said representation submitted by the applicant-respondent herein. Questioning the validity and the legal sustainability of the order, passed by the State Level Police Recruitment Board, dated 26.06.2O18, the applicant-respondent herein approached the Tribunal by way of filing O.A.No.1712 of 2018. The Tribunal, by way of the order impugned in the present Writ Petition, allowed the said Original Application and directed the State Level Police Recruitment Board to order for the applicant's training as Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (Civil) within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 3. The Tribunal, by way of the order impugned in the present Writ Petition, allowed the said Original Application and directed the State Level Police Recruitment Board to order for the applicant's training as Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (Civil) within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 3. In the above background, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the State contending, inter olia, in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, that the said order passed by the Tribunal is highly erroneous and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 4. Heard Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned Special Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the petitioners, apart from perusing the entire material available on record. 5. According to the learned Government Pleader, the order passed by the Tribunal in the instant case is highly erroneous and opposed to the very spirit and object of the A.P.Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules i999, as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.97, Home (Legal-II) Department, dated 01 .05.2006, in general and Rule 3 (c) (i) of the said Rules in particular. It is the further submission of the learned Government Pleader that the order passed by the Tribunal is also contrary to the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Aaatar Singh's case (referred to supra). It is the further submission of the learned Government Pleader that, since the respondent herein wilfully suppressed the fact um of his involvement in the criminal case and the conviction recorded therein, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the Original Application filed by the applicant-respondent herein. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that, since the police force is a disciplinary force, utmost integrity is sought to be maintained by the personnel, working in the said force, and, as such, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of cancellation of the provisional selection of the applicant. 6. In the above background, now the issue that falls for consideration of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. is: "Whether the order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned in the present Writ Petition, is sustainable and tenable and Whether the same is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avatar Singh's case, (referred to supra)?". 7. is: "Whether the order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned in the present Writ Petition, is sustainable and tenable and Whether the same is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avatar Singh's case, (referred to supra)?". 7. There is absolutely no controversy with regard to the reality that the applicant-respondent herein was provisionally selected as a police constable under BC-B category. On the ground of his involvement in a criminal case in STC.No.237 of 2015, which ended in conviction, the State Level Police Recruitment Board, while referring to Rule 3(G) (i) of the A.P. Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1999, cancelled the provisional selection of the applicant, which made the applicant herein to land in the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2887 of 2017. The order passed in the said Original Application was challenged before the Composite High Court in W.P.No.10785 of 2018 as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. The said order passed by the Tribunal was set aside by the Composite High Court. However, liberty was given to the applicant-respondent herein to submit a representation, for consideration, before the authorities concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Avatar Singh's case. Once again, the State Level Police Recruitment Board, vide order, dated 26.06.2018, rejected the request of the applicant- respondent herein, which compelled the applicant to approach the Tribunal once again by way of filing O.A.No.1712 of 2018. The Tribunal, by way of the order under challenge, while setting aside the Memo, dated 26.06.2018, directed the respondent authorities to send the applicant therein as the Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (Civil), within a period of two weeks. The subject post is governed by the A.P. Police Subordinate Rules, 1999. Rule 3 of the said Rules deals with the qualifications. Rule 3 (G) of the Rules deals with the disqualification for appointment. 8. Rule 3 (G) (i) of the Rules stipulates that suppression of material facts (either in the application form or in the attestation form) leads to disqualification for appointment. 9. In Avatar Singh's case (referred to supra), the Honourable Apex Court laid down certain guidelines for guidance of the authorities for consideration of the cases of the present nature. The Honourable Apex Court, in the above referred judgment, summarised the conclusions at paragraph No.38. 9. In Avatar Singh's case (referred to supra), the Honourable Apex Court laid down certain guidelines for guidance of the authorities for consideration of the cases of the present nature. The Honourable Apex Court, in the above referred judgment, summarised the conclusions at paragraph No.38. Paragraph No.38.4 and 38.41, which are relevant for the present case read as under: "38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/ verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, and of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted. 38.41. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incoment unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse”. 10. In the instant case, in STC.No.237 of 2015, registered for the offence under Section 29O IPC, charge sheet was filed by the concerned Station House Officer. A copy of the said charge sheet is filed along with the present Writ Petition as a material paper. The said Criminal prosecution was launched against the applicant-respondent herein on the ground that he abused a woman in connection with a dispute pertaining to pathway. It is not in dispute that, in the said STC.No.237 of 2015, the applicant-respondent herein was convicted for the offence alleged and fine of Rs.200/-was imposed on him. Now the issue which falls for consideration of this Court is: "Whether such conviction in a petty case would disentitle the respondent-applicant from holding the post of a police constable?. 11. In fact, in the direction of clarifying such issues, the Honourable Apex Court rendered the judgment in Avatar Singh's case (referred to supra). Admittedly, the applicant-respondent herein was convicted for the offence of a trivial nature. 12. 11. In fact, in the direction of clarifying such issues, the Honourable Apex Court rendered the judgment in Avatar Singh's case (referred to supra). Admittedly, the applicant-respondent herein was convicted for the offence of a trivial nature. 12. A perusal of the order of rejection, dated 26.06.2018, which was set aside by the Tribunal in O.A.No. 1712 of 2018, reveals, in clear and vivid terms, that the State Level Police Recruitment Board failed to consider the case on hand in terms of paragraph No.38.4 and 38.41 and, while referring to Rule 3 (G) of the Rules and on the ground that the applicant-respondent herein was convicted in STC.No.237/2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru and was imposed fine of Rs.200 and, while taking note of the non-disclosure of the said conviction, the State Level Police Recruitment Board cancelled the provisional selection of the applicant-respondent herein. 13. A reading of the order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition, shows that, obviously taking into consideration the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Avatar Singh's case and, while holding that the conviction in a petty case should not have been taken as a disqualification, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application, filed by the respondent herein, while setting aside the order of cancellation of the provisional selection of the applicant-respondent herein. 14. Having regard to the above reasons assigned by the Tribunal, this Court does not find any valid reason to meddle with the order passed by the Tribunal in the absence of any jurisdictional error or patent perversity in the said order. It is also pertinent to note that, when the authorities failed to implement the orders of the Tribunal, the applicant-respondent herein approached this Court, by way of filing W.P.No. 13717 of 2019, and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 30.09.2019 with a direction to the respondent authorities to implement the orders of the Tribunal within three months. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.