JUDGMENT D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. - This Court has heard Sri A.Srinath, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General appearing for the State. 2. The relief prayed in the writ petition is as a follows: '...to pass an order or a direction or a writ, more specifically a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Rule 3 of the A.P.Police (Special Police Battalions) Sub-ordinate service rules issued vide nominating the Commandant as the 'appointing Authority' for Police constables to Asst. Reserve Sub Inspectors in proceedings G.O.Ms.No.69 Home (Police-D) Dept., dated 07.04.1997 as also the rule (1) (b) of the G.O.Ms.No.85 (Police-D) Dept., dt. 28.04.1997 drawing up promotions within the Battalion for police constables to Asst. reserve sub-inspectors without drawing up state Level seniority as mandated not only by the presidential order but also by circular memo No.FSA/01/2014 dated 30.04.2014 as illegal and violative of the petitioner's rights under Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India, set aside the said Rule 3 of the A.P.Police (Special Police Battalions) Sub-ordinate service rules issued nominating the Commandant as the 'Appointing Authority' as also rule (1) (b) of the G.O.ms.No.85 (police-D) Dept., dated 28.04.1997 drawing up promotions within the Battalion for police constables to Asst reserve sub-inspectors as being in violation of the presidential order 1975 and therefore illegal and consequently direct the petitioner's seniority and promotions based on state level uniform seniority pass such other order...' 3. Initially, the writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not finalizing the State Level Seniority of the applicant vis-a-vis his juniors and for other reliefs. The prayer has been amended and the above prayer is sought now. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving in the A.P. Special Police and is now an Armed Reserve Sub-Inspector (ARSI) posted in the 6th battalion at Mangalagiri. He joined the force in 1994 as a Police Constable by virtue of a State Level Recruitment. It is argued that by virtue of the State Level Recruitment, he was posted in the 8th Battalion of Andhra Pradesh Special Police, Kondapur and the seniority has to be therefore decided on a State level basis. It is also submitted that pursuant to the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner opted for posting at the 6th battalion at Mangalagiri. It is also submitted that pursuant to the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner opted for posting at the 6th battalion at Mangalagiri. This is consequent to the bifurcation of the State and as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 (for short 'the Act'). 5. Relying upon the provisions of circular memo dated 30.09.2014, learned counsel submits that all employees of the State cadre post should be included in the seniority list which should be fixed as on 01.06.2014. He points out that the Presidential Order fixing the local, non-local candidates is not applicable and draws the attention of this Court to Annexure-III of this Government memo, which states that all categories of posts in the special police battalions are exempted from the A.P. Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975. He submits that post of the petitioner is squarely and clearly exempted from this Presidential Order of 1975 and that since the petitioner is in a state level post, his seniority has to be fixed on a State wide basis and the attempt of the respondents to promote his juniors over the present petitioner is contrary to law. 6. In reply to this, learned Advocate General appearing for the State argues and contends that the petitioner was not appointed to a state level post at all. Only an examination was conducted at the state level for the limited purpose of recruitment, but the petitioner and others belonging to the Special Police Establishment are governed by A.P. Police (Special Police Battalion Subordinate Service) Rules, 1997 which clearly provides that the Commandant of the Battalion is the 'appointing authority'. Learned Advocate General argues that only for the purpose of recruitment, the A.P. State Level Police Recruitment Board conducts a selection process and the petitioner is given an option to be allotted a battalion of the choice. In this case also, it is submitted that the petitioner was similarly appointed and the petitioner was also promoted as the ARSI based upon the battalion wise seniority. Learned Advocate General submits that the petitioner is fully aware of the seniority being maintained on a battalion wise basis and the petitioner has also had the benefit of the same. In this case also, it is submitted that the petitioner was similarly appointed and the petitioner was also promoted as the ARSI based upon the battalion wise seniority. Learned Advocate General submits that the petitioner is fully aware of the seniority being maintained on a battalion wise basis and the petitioner has also had the benefit of the same. He also points out that pursuant to the bifurcation of the State, the staff other than the ministerial staff were treated as State wide employees for the limited purpose of allotment between the States of Telangana and the Andhra Pradesh in the ratio of 58.32 to 41.68. It is emphasized that the Reorganization Act, and the Special Police Rules, 1997 cover distinct and different fields. Therefore, it is submitted that the respondents did not commit any mistake and the maintenance of the battalion level seniority is correct. It is pointed out that on 17.07.2016, the petitioner opted for the posting at 6th Battalion APSP and he was posted there on 10.03.2017. Later, on 08.02.2019, he was promoted as ARSI. Therefore, learned Advocate General argues that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same should be dismissed. 7. This Court notices that it is the specific case of the respondents that a separate set of Rules for the various posts in the special police battalion were formulated by G.O.Ms.No.69 on 07.04.1997. These are called Special Rules for A.P. Police (Special Police Battalions) Subordinate Service Rules. The appointing authority for the post of Head Constable is the Commandant of each Battalion. Even for the post of ARSI, which is by promotion from a Head Constable, it is the Commandant, who is the Appointing Authority. The petitioner in the opinion of this Court squarely covered by these Rules which are specifically formulated for the purpose of members of the Special Police Battalions. As noticed earlier, the selection was conducted by the A.P. Police Recruitment Board on a State wide basis, thereafter, the petitioner was appointed at a specific battalion. Even after the reorganization of the State, the petitioner was given an option of seeking posting at a particular battalion and he, in fact, exercised the said option. The same is visible from the request of the petitioner dated 12.07.2016 which is filed with the additional documents. 8. Even after the reorganization of the State, the petitioner was given an option of seeking posting at a particular battalion and he, in fact, exercised the said option. The same is visible from the request of the petitioner dated 12.07.2016 which is filed with the additional documents. 8. Considering the special Rules which have been formulated for the special police battalion, this Court is of the opinion that the submissions made by the learned Advocate General deserve acceptance. The mere fact that the Special Police Establishment is exempted from 1975 Presidential Order does not lead to an irresistible conclusion that the post to which the petitioner was selected is a 'state level post'. The petitioner is governed by 1997 Rules framed by G.O.Ms.No.69 which are formulated in exercise of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Act or the fact that an exam was conducted at a State level therein will not change the status of the petitioner's appointment. The Special Rules of 1997 would govern the case. The petitioner has also relied upon guidelines for final allocation of State Cadre Employees issued by the Government of India basing on the Reorganization Act. Clause 10 of the guidelines speaks of two distinct types of posts in a department, (a) posts at a state level of organized state wide services in a department in which the whole State is a unit of appointment and (b) posts in the State level entities wherein the unit of appointment is the Office of the secretary, the Head of the Department or the Head of the State level entity. 9. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner could not prove that he was appointed to the State level post and that the State is the unit of appointment in his case. His appointment was by his unit Head/Commandant and his promotion was also given as an ARSI by the appointing authority i.e. Commandant of the Battalion. Therefore, no fault can be found both on law and on fact, with regard to the fixation of seniority at a battalion level. 10. Last but not the least, this Court notices that the amended prayer is to declare Rule 3 of the Special Rules for A.P.Police (Special Police Battalions) Subordinate Service Rules as illegal and violative of law. Therefore, no fault can be found both on law and on fact, with regard to the fixation of seniority at a battalion level. 10. Last but not the least, this Court notices that the amended prayer is to declare Rule 3 of the Special Rules for A.P.Police (Special Police Battalions) Subordinate Service Rules as illegal and violative of law. The pleadings in the opinion of this Court in the writ petition are not at all adequate to hold that 1997 Rules are contrary to law or illegal. When the vires of a Rule is challenged, the pleading should be adequate or clear. The pleadings are absolutely silent why Rule 3 is illegal/arbitrary etc. In the case on hand, no basis is visible for giving a declaration sought. 11. Therefore, for all the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.