Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010236582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 12356/2025 Between: 1. KAVITI TIRUPATHI RAO,, S/O RAJANNA, C/O JAGANNADHAPURAM, RENIKOTA, PALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN MANGALAGIRI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2 6. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRAINING, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner candidature for the post of SCT PC(CIVIL)(MEN)(21) Srikakulam District consequently not sending the petitioner for induction training on the ground that suppression of facts despite of petitioner acquitted from all the criminal proceedings against him before notificationis illegal, arbitrary and violation of article 14,15,19 and 21 of the constitution of India and Avtar Singh vs Union Of India (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIOIN C)N0.20525/2011) and pass such other order or orders (as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and consequently direct the respondents to send the petitioner to induction training forthwith without any delay and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, direct the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 10.02.2025 forthwith without any delay pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. REGULAGADDA VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. REGULAGADDA VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 3 The Court made the following: Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.12356 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning the rejection of candidature of Petitioner for induction training to SCT PC (Civil) and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts in brief are as follows; The State Level Police Recruitment Board issued a recruitment notification in the year 2007 for the post of Police Constable in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999. As per the selection process, a preliminary written test would be conducted, and thereafter, subject to qualification in the written test, a physical efficiency test would be conducted. The Petitioner had applied for the post of SCTPC (Civil) (Men) and was allotted Registration No.594489. The Petitioner was successfully qualified in the written test and physical test and was provisionally selected for the said post. 3. Before the issuance of recruitment notification, a criminal case was registered against the Petitioner in Cr.No.84 of 2000 for the offences under Section 338 IPC of Kasibugga P.S. The Petitioner was arrested and sent to judicial remand on 25.04.2000. After trial in the case, the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to a fine of 5 Rs.1200/- by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palasa. In the Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Court, Petitioner was acquitted on 14.08.2000. 4. In the application form at column 16, a specific query was posed as "Whether you were involved in a criminal case?”. Petitioner categorically mentioned the same as “NO”. Under column 16 (e), a further query was “Whether you were arrested by the Police.” The petitioner did not answer this aspect. Point No,16(f) a query was posed “whether you were prosecuted by the Police in a Court of law and if so, indicate the present stage of the case under trial, conviction, acquitted and other details were sought.” No answer was given by the Petitioner. 5. Taking note of this deliberate suppression, the Chairman of the State Level Police Recruitment Board vide memorandum dated 27.10.2009 cancelled the provisional selection of the Petitioner as it violates Rule 2(G)(i) of G.O.Ms.No.97 of Home Legal Department dated 01.05.2006. The said order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 21.07.2009 and also by the Government vide proceedings No.29736/Ser.III/A1/2009, dated 29.10.2010. 6. These orders were questioned in O.A.No.3395 of 2013 and the Tribunal dismissed the same vide order dated 02.03.2017. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: 6 „ .......It undoubtedly denotes that the applicant's action of suppressing material relating to his arrest in a Criminal Case by the Police and his conviction by the Magistrate and ultimate acquittal by the Sessions Court in appeal, constitute events which offend the rules particularly Rule 2 (G) (i) of G.O.Ms.No.97 Home (Legal.II) Department dated 01.05.2006 issued by way of amendment to G.O.Ms.No.315 Home (Police.C) Department dated 13.10.1999. The applicant could not show under what grounds relaxation of the above Rule 2 G (i) is liable to be granted. In the circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled for any relief in this Original Application. 8. Even though the impugned Government Memo is dated 29.10.2010, this Original Application is filed on 13.03.2012; and delay in filing this Original Application was condoned by this Tribunal by order dated 30.04.2013 in M.Α.Νο.870/2012. At this point of time, this Tribunal does not find any reason to give appointment order to the applicant relating to the selections of the year 2006. 9. In the result, the Original Application is dismissed.‟ 7. Therefore, the present writ petition agitating the very same issue without questioning the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7 As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 02.09.2026 KLP