9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The scope of Rule 5 of the A.P. Police Service Rules, 1966 in determining the eligibility of a candidate for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police. Summary: The case involved an appeal by the A.P. Public Service Commission against a decision of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal regarding the interpretation of Rule 5 of the A.P. Police Service Rules, 1966. The respondent had applied for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police but did not meet the minimum age requirement. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's contention that the age eligibility should be determined at the date of preparation of the list of selected candidates, not at an earlier date. The Supreme Court analyzed Rule 5, which sets the minimum and maximum age for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal's interpretation, stating that age eligibility should be specific and determinate at a particular date for candidates to apply and for the recruiting agency to scrutinize applications. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's order. In conclusion, the Supreme Court clarified that the eligibility of candidates for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police should be determined based on Rule 5 of the A.P. Police Service Rules, with age requirements being specific and determinate at a particular date. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency in the selection process to avoid uncertainties and ensure fairness to all candidates.
|
