ORDER : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Nerella, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “….to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS by declaring the impugned Memorandum issued by the 4 th respondent wherein rejected the claim of the petitioners for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to Police Constable vide Rc.No.A1- Estt/1237/2021, dated 04.08.2021, Rc.No.A1- Estt/1237/2021, dated 24.08.2021, Rc.No.A1- Estt/1237/2021, dated 14.09.2021, Rc.No.A1- Estt/1237/2021, dated 08.10.2021, even though the respondent authorities were considered the claim of similarly situated persons for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to Police Constable vide Rc.No.A1/16/PPT/2018-20 (D.O.No. 266/2020) dated 18.02.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and accordingly set aside the same with a consequential direction to respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for reversion from the category to HC to PC in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P No.37146 of 2013 and 39280 of 2013 and orders issued in favor of similarly situated persons vide orders Rc.No.A1/16/ PPT/2018-20 (D.O. No.266/2020) dated 18.02.2020 in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.” 3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners have been appointed as Police Constables (TSSP) in the year 2018 and posted to 8 th Battalion, TSSP, Kondapur, R.R. District. As per the Telangana State Police Rules category 7(b), the petitioners are eligible for conversion from TS Special Police to Armed Reserve (AR) Constables after completion of 10 years of service. Subsequently, the petitioners have been promoted to the post of Head Constables in the year 2021 but later sought voluntary reversion to the post of Constable due to personal hardships. However, their request for reversion was rejected by the 4 th respondent vide the impugned order Rc.No.A1- Estt/1237/2021, dated 04.08.2021, Rc.No.A1-Estt/1237/2021, dated 24.08.2021, Rc.No.A1-Estt/1237/2021, dated 14.09.2021, Rc.No.A1-Estt/1237/2021, dated 08.10.2021, without assigning proper reasons and merely citing administrative grounds though the similarly situated persons belong to the same Battalion were allowed for reversion vide order dated 30.03.2019. However, their request for reversion was rejected by the 4 th respondent vide the impugned order Rc.No.A1- Estt/1237/2021, dated 04.08.2021, Rc.No.A1-Estt/1237/2021, dated 24.08.2021, Rc.No.A1-Estt/1237/2021, dated 14.09.2021, Rc.No.A1-Estt/1237/2021, dated 08.10.2021, without assigning proper reasons and merely citing administrative grounds though the similarly situated persons belong to the same Battalion were allowed for reversion vide order dated 30.03.2019. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD: (A) The relevant portion of the impugned Memo vide Rc.No.A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 04.08.2021 of the respondent No.4 addressed to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein is extracted hereunder: “With reference to the letter 2 nd cited, the following HCs of this unit have submitted their applications requesting to revert them as PCs due to their family/personal problems. Sl.No. Name HC Number 1 Sri D. Venkatesh HC 939 2 Sri Gopal Reddy HC 2629 3 Sri K. Shekar HC 2630 In this regard, the applications of the above (03) HCs requesting to revert them as PCs are hereby considered and rejected on administrative grounds, as per reference 1 st cited. Acknowledge the receipt of this Memo. Commandant 8th BN TSSP, Kondapur, R.R. District. To The above individuals through OC ‘HQ’ Coy. (B) The relevant portion of the impugned Memo vide Rc.No. A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 24.08.2021 of the respondent No.4 addressed to the petitioner No.3 herein is extracted hereunder: “With reference to the letter 2nd cited, the following HCs of this unit have submitted their applications requesting to revert them as PCs due to their family/personal problems. S.No. Name HC Number 1 Sri N. Sathish Reddy HC 2505 2 Sri K. Shashank Reddy HC 2617 3 Sri B. Ramesh HC 2633 In this regard, the applications of the above (03) HCs requesting to revert them as PCs are hereby considered and rejected on administrative grounds, as per reference 1 st cited. Acknowledge the receipt of this Memo. Sd/-xxx Commandant 8th BN TSSP, Kondapur, R.R. District. To The above individuals through OC ‘HQ’ Coy. (C) The relevant portion of the impugned Memo vide Rc.No. A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 14.09.2021 of the respondent No.4 addressed to the petitioner No.4 herein is extracted hereunder: “With reference to the letter 2nd and 3rd cited, the following HCs of this unit have submitted their applications requesting to revert them as PCs due to their family/personal problems. (C) The relevant portion of the impugned Memo vide Rc.No. A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 14.09.2021 of the respondent No.4 addressed to the petitioner No.4 herein is extracted hereunder: “With reference to the letter 2nd and 3rd cited, the following HCs of this unit have submitted their applications requesting to revert them as PCs due to their family/personal problems. S.No. Name HC Number 1 Sri V. Naresh Yadav 2553 2 Sri R. Srinivas 2784 In this regard, the applications of the above (02) HCs requesting to revert them as PCs are hereby considered and rejected on administrative grounds, as per reference 1 st and 4 th cited. Acknowledge the receipt of this Memo. Sd/-xxx Commandant 8th BN TSSP, Kondapur, R.R. District. To The above individuals through OsC ‘B’ & ‘F’ Coys. (D) The relevant portion of the impugned Memo vide Rc.No. A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 08.10.2021 of the respondent No.4 addressed to the petitioner No.5 herein is extracted hereunder: “With reference to the letter 2nd to 5th cited, the following HCs of this unit have submitted their applications requesting to revert them as PCs due to their family/personal problems. Sl . No . Rank G.N o . Name S/Sri Present place of working 1 HC 553 Mahesh F Coy 2. HC 2631 J. Srinivasulu F Coy 3 HC 2628 K. Pradeep Reddy Hq Coy 4 HC 2590 M. Mahesh Yadav HQ Coy 5 HC 2621 B. Narasim ha HQ Coy In this regard, the applications of the above (05) HCs requesting to revert them as PCs are hereby considered and rejected on administrative grounds, as per reference 1 st cited. Acknowledge the receipt of this Memo. Sd/-xxx Commandant 8th BN TSSP, Kondapur, R.R. District. To The above individuals through OsC F & HQ Coys. (E) The relevant portion of the order relating to similarly situated persons vide Rc.No. A1/ 16/ PPT/ 2018- 20, dated 18.02.2020 of the respondent No.4 herein is extracted hereunder: “With reference to the orders 1 st cited, the following Police Constables were promoted as Head Constable and they both have reported for duty as HC on 23.02.2019 Now, they have submitted representation with reference 3 rd cited requesting to revert them as Police Constable in view of family problems. S.No. Name HC Number 1 Sri Ch. S.No. Name HC Number 1 Sri Ch. Sekhar HC 317 2 Sri V. Shravan Kumar HC 357 In this regard with reference to TSSP Head office memo 2 nd cited the Committee was formed vide reference 4 th cited, and counseled the above Head Constables and appraised them the benefits available in TSSP on continuation as Head Constable. Despite of the counseling the above Head Constables have submitted their representations vide reference 6 th cited, stating that they are not willing to work as HC and requested to consider for reversion as Police Constable in view of family problems. As per TSSP Head Office vide reference 2nd cited a probationer Head Constable can be reverted as Police Constable as per his willingness. Hence, Sri Ch. Sekhar HC 317 and Sri V. Shravan Kumar, HC 357 are reverted to their substantive post of Police Constable with immediate effect, at their own request in view of family problems. Hence the OC HO' Coy is directed to send the date of reversion of the above HCs as Police Constable and report compliance. Clerk is directed to revise the pay of above individuals in the substantive rank of Police Constable and claim their pay accordingly. Commandant, 8th Bn TSSP. Kondapur, R.R. District. To The above individuals through OC 'HQ' Coy (F) The relevant portion of the common order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.03.2014 passed in W.P.No.37146 of 2013 and 39280 of 2013 in particular para No.7 is extracted hereunder: “ 7. Learned counsel for the first respondent in the Writ Petitions/applicants relied on a decision in G.Boyanna’s case (supra) wherein it is held thus: (para 7) “It is relevant to note at this point that the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Junior Assistant but was appointed by transfer. In fact, he could not have been so promoted, as the post of Process Server is not in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. In this view of the matter, it is doubtful whether the act of the petitioner in seeking reversion from the post of Junior Assistant can be said to be one of relinquishment of his right to be considered for promotion. However, this is how the respondents have treated the matter and the petitioner also abided by it. In this view of the matter, it is doubtful whether the act of the petitioner in seeking reversion from the post of Junior Assistant can be said to be one of relinquishment of his right to be considered for promotion. However, this is how the respondents have treated the matter and the petitioner also abided by it. Therefore, for the purpose of this case, it shall be presumed that the petitioner relinquished his right for promotion when he sought reversion to the post of Process Server.” The above decision has no application to the facts of the present case. But, on the ground of discrimination, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. It is not in dispute before this Court that as per proceedings dated 21.10.2005, some of the Head Constables were reverted and posted to work as Police Constables in the District Armed Reserve in their respective Units. Therefore, there should not be any discrimination from one person to another person. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. However, the cases of applicants have to be considered if they fit into 40% quota. Therefore, we make it clear that after reversion, the applicants cannot be immediately sent to the District Armed Reserve but their cases have to be considered for posting to District Armed Reserve if they come within the 40% quota meant for Police Constables of APSP.” DI SCUSSI ON AND CONCLUSI ON: 5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that petitioner’s request for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to Police Constable was rejected by Respondent No.4 vide proceedings Rc.No.A1-Estt/1237/2021, dated 04.08.2021, Rc.No.A1- Estt/1237/2021, dated 24.08.2021, Rc.No.A1-Estt/1237/2021, dated 14.09.2021, Rc.No.A1-Estt/1237/2021, dated 08.10.2021, even though the respondent authorities had considered and accepted similar requests for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to Police Constable to similarly situated individuals, vide order dated 18.02.2020. In C.No. 171/A1/2019 (D.No.145/2019), as well as to the petitioners who had approached this Court by filing W.P. Nos. 37146 of 2013 and 39280 of 2013. However, in the present case, the petitioner’s request for reversion from the post of Head Constable to Police Constable was rejected, with a mere intimation stating that the request could not be considered on administrative grounds, as per the instructions issued by the Head Office to Respondent No.4. 6. 37146 of 2013 and 39280 of 2013. However, in the present case, the petitioner’s request for reversion from the post of Head Constable to Police Constable was rejected, with a mere intimation stating that the request could not be considered on administrative grounds, as per the instructions issued by the Head Office to Respondent No.4. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner places reliance on the Common Order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.03.2014 passed in W.P. Nos.37146 of 2013 and 39280 of 2013, and contends that the petitioner herein is also entitled for the similar relief as extended to the petitioners in the present writ petition, in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the passing of orders under similar circumstances in W.P.No.36609 of 2024 and batch dated 28.02.2025. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, in particular, paragraph No.8 contends that the petitioner was appointed as Police Constable in February, 2018 and completed only three years of service. For reversion to Police Constable (AR) (Men), a minimum of 10 years of service is required and the petitioner, in his representation submitted to the respondent office, requested reversion due to family and personal problems, and the petitioner had not mentioned that he was seeking reversion for Armed Reserved conversion. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. But how ever since the said reasons stated in the counter affidavit do not reflect in the I mpugned Memo of the 4 th respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 04.08.2021, Rc.No.A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 24.08.2021, Rc.No.A1- Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 14.09.2021, Rc.No.A1- Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 08.10.2021, and the said Impugned Proceedings only indicate administrative grounds this Court opines that the same is an afterthought developed to improve the case of the respondents and therefore the said pleas cannot be taken into consideration by this Court for adjudication of the present case. 9. 9. A bare perusal of the record indicates that Respondent No.4 rejected the petitioner’ request without assigning any specific reasons, merely stating that the request of the petitioner from Head Constable to Police Constable could not be considered due to Head Office instructions issued by the Respondent No.4 on administrative grounds though the similar relief had been extended to similarly situated persons, who made a request for reversion from Head Constable to Police constable as per the Common Order of the Division Bench of this Court and the observations thereunder dated 24.03.2014 passed in W.P.Nos.37146 of 2013 and 39820 of 2013 and similar such relief had been extended to the petitioner in W.P.No.36609 of 2024 and batch, vide orders of this Court dated 28.02.2025. 10. Therefore, this Court opines that the request of the petitioners for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to Police Constable has to be reconsidered by the 4 th respondent in accordance to law duly taking into consideration the observations of the Common Order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.03.2014 passed in W.P. Nos.37146 of 2013 and 39280 of 2013 (referred to and extracted above) within a reasonable period by the 4 th respondent herein. 11. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The fact that similar relief had been extended to the similarly situated individuals, w ho made a request for reversion from Head Constable to Police Constable by the respondent No.4 vide orders dated 30.03.2019 and, d) The observations made in the Common Order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.03.2014 passed in W.P.No.37146 of 2013 and 39820 of 2013, e) The order dated 28.02.2025 passed in W.P. No. 36609 of 2024 and batch. f) The fact as borne on record that the impugned memo vide proceedings Rc.No.A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 04.08.2021, Rc.No.A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 24.08.2021, Rc.No.A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 14.09.2021, Rc.No.A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 08.10.2021, of the respondent No.4 addressed to the petitioner is bereft of reasons. The writ petition is allow ed. f) The fact as borne on record that the impugned memo vide proceedings Rc.No.A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 04.08.2021, Rc.No.A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 24.08.2021, Rc.No.A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 14.09.2021, Rc.No.A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 08.10.2021, of the respondent No.4 addressed to the petitioner is bereft of reasons. The writ petition is allow ed. The impugned Memorandum vide proceedings Rc.No.A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 04.08.2021, Rc.No.A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 24.08.2021, Rc.No.A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 14.09.2021, Rc.No.A1-Estt/ 1237/ 2021, dated 08.10.2021, issued by the respondent No.4 is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the request of the petitioners for reversion from the rank of Head Constable to Police Constable in accordance to law duly taking into consideration the observations of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24-3-2014 passed in W.P. Nos. 37146 of 2013 and 39820 of 2013 and also the fact as borne on record that similar relief had been extended to similarly situated persons vide proceedings of the 4 th respondent Rc.No.A1/ 16/ PPT/ 2018-20 (D.O. No.266/ 2020) dated 18.02.2020 (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate reasoned speaking orders w ithin a period of four w eeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.