ORDER : (A.V. Sesha Sai, J.) 1. Since these four Writ Petitions arise from a common order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A.Nos.6733, 6734, 6735 and 6736 of 2010, and as the Writ Petitioners herein share the common and similar grievance, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this batch of Writ Petitions by way of this common order. 2. This Court also deems it appropriate to refer the parties as arrayed in the Original Application for the purpose of brevity. 3. The applicants were initially appointed as Junior Assistants in the Department of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, in the years 1986 and 1988. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise issued a notification bearing No.CR.No.7487/1999/CPE/HI, dated 23.09.2000, permitting the Deputy Commissioners of Prohibition and Excise to fill up the vacancies of Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspectors, available in their respective Divisions. Pursuant to the said notification, the applicants herein were appointed as Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspectors on incharge basis against the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment. 4. The State Government, vide Memo No.2619/Ex.I(2)/2010-3, dated 04.08.2010, accorded permission to the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, for filling up vacancies of the Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector earmarked for direct recruitment as per Note 1 under Rule 3 of the A.P. Prohibition and Excise Subordinate Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.950, Revenue (Excise.I) Department, dated 28.11.1998, by way of promotion from the categories of Junior Assistant and Prohibition & Excise Head Constable temporarily under Rule 10(1) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. In pursuance of the said permission accorded, a decision was also taken to consider the case of the applicants and, vide proceedings RC.No.A2/320/2007, dated 23.10.2010, a request was made to the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada to depute the incharge Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspectors and also Junior Assistants and the applicants in the Original Application stood at Serial Nos.3, 4, 5 and 9. 5. In the above background, obviously assailing the action of the respondents in seeking to undertake the process of recording physical measurements for preparation of the panel to the post of Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Kakinada Division, the applicants approached the Tribunal by way of the present Original Application. 6. 5. In the above background, obviously assailing the action of the respondents in seeking to undertake the process of recording physical measurements for preparation of the panel to the post of Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Kakinada Division, the applicants approached the Tribunal by way of the present Original Application. 6. The Tribunal, vide the impugned common order dated 21.03.2013, dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioners herein. 7. In the above background, challenging the validity and legal sustainability of the said orders passed by the Tribunal, the present Writ Petitions came to be instituted by the unsuccessful applicants in the Original Application. 8. While admitting the Rule Nisi, the Composite High Court passed interim orders on 03.04.2013, directing the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to the position of the petitioners/applicants. 9. The applicant/petitioner in W.P.No.10048 of 2013 and the applicant/petitioner in W.P.No.10006 of 2013 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in the months of May and June 2021, and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.10015 of 2013 and 10049 of 2013 are still continuing as Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspectors. 10. Heard Sri P.Suresh Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Challa Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners on record, Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents. 11. Sri P.Suresh Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, contends that the orders passed by the Tribunal, which are impugned in the present Writ Petitions are highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the basic principles of service jurisprudence. In elaboration, it is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioners herein were appointed as Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspectors approximately a decade back only on finding that they fulfilled all the qualifications and eligibilities prescribed for the post of Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspectors. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that as the petitioners herein were appointed ten (10) years back as Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspectors only after thorough examination of their physical measurements, the insistence on the part of the respondents to take the measurements once again after a decade is highly irrational and arbitrary, besides being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the Tribunal grossly erred in dismissing the Original Applications, by totally ignoring the orders passed earlier in O.A.No.9143 of 2010, passed in similarly situated circumstances. 12. On the contrary, strenuously opposing the writ petitions, Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, contends that there is no illegality nor there exists any infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal, and in the absence of the same, no interference of this Court is warranted by way of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that there is absolutely no illegality in insisting on the applicants to attend for physical measurements test and the same was resorted to in accordance with the notification issued on 04.08.2010. 13. In the above background, now the issues, which this Court is called upon to consider and answer in these Writ Petitions are: 1.Whether the orders passed by the Tribunal, which are impugned in these writ petitions are sustainable and tenable ? 2. Whether the questioned orders warrant any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of Judicial Review ? 14. There is absolutely no controversy with regard to the reality that interms of notification issued earlier on 23.09.2000, the applicants were appointed as incharge Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspectors against the posts admittedly earmarked for direct recruitment candidates. It is equally important to note that after having gone through the exercise of verification of physical measurements conducted by the respondent authorities, the applicants herein were appointed as Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspectors. Obviously, more than one decade back the applicants were appointed in the said category. Now, by way of the intimation dated 23.09.2010, once again the applicants herein were asked to undergo the process of physical verification and physical measurements for preparation of panels to the post of Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspectors, Kakinada Division. 15. The respondent authorities did not deny the factum of appointment of applicants after subjecting them to the verification of physical measurements. Obviously, only on being satisfied with the result of such verification, the applicants were given appointment orders in the category of Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspectors on incharge basis. 15. The respondent authorities did not deny the factum of appointment of applicants after subjecting them to the verification of physical measurements. Obviously, only on being satisfied with the result of such verification, the applicants were given appointment orders in the category of Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspectors on incharge basis. It is also significant to note that when a similar issue of reverification fell for consideration before the Tribunal, the Tribunal, allowed the said O.A.No.9143 of 2010, declaring that such a process was impermissible. Infact, the said order passed by the Tribunal is also placed on record along with present Writ Petitions as a material paper. Having appointed the petitioners herein as incharge Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspectors after subjecting them for physical measurements test and having allowed them to continue in such capacity more than one decade, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned insistence to undergo the test once again would not stand for the twin test of reasonableness and rationality. 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings of the Tribunal, that the earlier order in O.A.No.9143 of 2010 is not relevant, is not tenable and sustainable. It is also significant to note that the information furnished by the respondent authorities under the Right to Information Act with regard to the physical measurements of the applicants at the time of their appointment initially a decade back would clearly show that the applicants herein complied with the mandatory requirements as regards the physical measurements. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, these Writ Petitions are allowed, setting aside the common order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.6733, 6734, 6735 and 6736 of 2010 and consequently it is declared that, without reference to physical measurements, the applicants/petitioners herein are entitled for appointment as Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspectors against the quota earmarked for their category with all consequential benefits. It is also made clear that in respect of the applicants, who already retired from service, the benefit shall be extended to them with all consequential benefits notionally. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.