P.V. RADHA KRISHNA AND ORS. versus STATE OF A. P. AND ORS.

18. In 1991, advertisement Rc.No.419/R&T Admn 1/90 D dated 14.2.1991 was issued for recruitment of Civil Sub- Inspectors (Man) and Reserve Sub-Inspectors (Man) in different zones which were identified with the respective ranges. In that advertisement, 80 vacancies of Civil Sub-Inspector (Man) and 26 vacancies of Reserve Sub-Inspector (Man) were shown as E earmarked for Hyderabad City Police Range, which was also described as Zone VII (free zone). In 1994 also, an advertisement was issued for recruitment of 435 Sub-lrispecfors Civil/Intelligence (Man). In that advertisement 74 vacancies.were showri as earmarked for Zone VII i.e., Hyderabad City (free zone). Similar advertisements were issued after 1975 for recruitment to various posts enumerated in paragraph 14(f) of the Presidential Order. Genesis of the present litigation

19. In view of order dated 20.10.1984 passP.d by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos.22622-22635/1990 and connected matters, the State Government issued G.O. Ms. No.349 Home (Police. C) Department dated 15.12.1997 whereby the private respondents who were then working as Inspectors of Police in H Hyderabad City Police (City Range), were transferred back/ P.V. RADHA KRISHNA AND ORS. v. STATE OF AP. 207 _, AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] repatriated to their parent cadres in other police ranges .;{~ specified in G.O. Ms. No.1697, Home dated 10.12.1975 and G.O. Ms. No. 795 dated 30.6.1976. The private respondents challenged G.O. Ms. No.349 in O.A. Nos.7579/1998, 8430/ 1998, 8431/1998, 8534/1998, 58/2001 and 2139/2001. They pleaded that their transfer to Hyderabad City Police had been effected in accordance with the provisions of the 1985 Act and rules framed there under and in public interest and the Government's action to transfer them back to the ranges in which they were initially appointed is ex facie illegal, arbitrary -I and unjustified. They further pleaded that the order passed by c the Full Bench of the Tribunal cannot be invoked for effecting their repatriation to the parent cadres because they were not parties in O.A. Nos.22622-22635/1990 and connected matters. Another plea taken by the private respondents was that the impugned G.O. is liable to be declared arbitrary and discriminatory because while some of those who were transferred to Hyderabad City Police have been repatriated, others have been retained.

20. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the official respondents before the Tribunal, it was specifically averred that the applicants in O.As. were appointed in districts other than Hyderabad City Police and were promoted as Inspectors in their respective parent units as per seniority in their respective. ranges and they cannot claim continuance in Hyderabad City Police. It was then pleaded that the applicants were transferred to Hyderabad City Police by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by G.O. No.288 dated 6.5.1986 but their seniority is being maintained in their respective police ranges and none has been assigned seniority in Hyderabad City Police. According to the official respondents, the 1985 Act and ….. the rules framed there under are not effective for making transfer in respect of local cadres i.e., either inter cadre or from or to posts in the cadre to and from posts in paragraph 14 of the Presidential Order for which provision is to be made by the Government in terms of various clauses of paragraph 5(2). The relevant portions of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government in 0.A. No.7579/1998 – Sardar Harihar Singh and three others v. State of A.P. and others, are extracted below:- c "It is further submitted that the applicants in the OA were · transferred to Hyderabad City Police by the 3rd respondent in exercise of the powers conferred on him in G.O. Ms. No.288 dated 6.5.1986 on different dates. The senion1y of the above applicants is being maintained in their respective police ranges only. None of the applicants were assigned seniority in Hyderabad City Police. All of them were promoted as Inspectors of Police in their respective parent units as per their tum in seniority. In reply to para 6(0) it is submitted that the contention of the applicants that Hyderabad City Police is not a separate zone is incorrect and baseless. It is fact that the entire AP has been divided into six zones and Hyderabad City Police has been treated as "Free Zone". The Hyderabad City Police being Free Zone has got separate entity as like other zones. The vacancies in respect of posts of Hyder~bad City Police are notified separately and selection/appointment to the post of Sub- Inspectors of Police, Civil and Reserve Sub-Inspectors of Police, CAR and Police constables of both Civil and CAR to the extent of vacancies are conducted by this unit only and appointment orders to the candidates so selected after completion of recruitment process wor': co the said posts such as physical efficiencv test, one star test, three star test and also written examination to the candidates are conducted by this unit only independently. The same process if followed in respect of posts of other six zones separately by each zone. Thus all the six zones and Hyderabad City Police are separate units for ail service matters of appointment, promotion to _, P.V. RADHA KRISHNA AND ORS. v. STATE OF AP. AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] the next rank etc. The Hyderabad City Police is not a part and parcel of Zone Six as contended by the applicants." (emphasis supplied)

21. After taking note of the respective pleadings, the Tribunal dismissed the O.As. The argument of the applicants that Hyderabad City Police is part and parcel of Zone VI was rejected by the Tribunal in the following words: -t "There is no separate zones for Hyderabad city. It is thus a free zone. It thus follows that the Hyderabad City Police c Unit is a free zone. Separate and independent recruitment is being made in res~ of post of Hyderabad city police: In short, Hyderabad city-police is being treated as a free zone where there is independent recruitment. n

22. The private respondents challenged the order of the l Tribunal by filing different writ petitions which were heard and disposed of by the Full Bench of the High Court. The Full Bench observed that the provisions of the 1985 Act will have to be construed in harmony with the provisions of the Presidential Order which prevail over any other provisions of the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force. The Full Bench then referred to various paragraphs of the Presidential Order and ,I. observed: "In construing the power granted to the State Government under para 5(2) for making provision for transfers of persons, we must not loose sight of the historical compulsions which have led to the enactment of the Presidential Order, which is buttressed by the over riding effect given to the provisions of the Presidential Order not G only against the exercise of the majoritarian, political and -j._ executive choices of the State, but is also made operative against any other provisions of the Constitution of India (Art.371D(10) read with para 11 of the Presidential Order)."

23. The Full Bench then delved into the grounds on which power under paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order could be exercised and observed: "Having regard to the provisions of para 14 of the Presidential Order, no limitations are prescribed on the power of the State Government to provide for transfer of the incumbent of a post in any department, institution or establishment enumerated in para 14 to another such department, institution or establishment. ,._ c Insofar as transfers of persons falling within the ambit of para 5(2)(a) to (c) is concerned, provisions of the Act 1985 and the rules thereunder set out in G.0.Ms. No.288 dated 6.5.1986, must be construed as enabling such transfers only when no qualified or suitable person is available in a particular local cadre or where such transfer is otherwise considered necessary in the public interest and for no other reason. Normally such transfers must necessarily be of limited duration or tenure to meet the specified exigency namely either during the period no qualified or suitable person is available or the public interest that necessitated such transfer, continues. Immediately on cessation of such circumstances – as and when a qualified or suitable person is available or when the public interest concerned ,I ceases to operate, the person so transferred in the above , F exigencies must need be repatriated to the local cadre to · which he belongs either by allotment or direct recruitment to it. There may be very rare circumstances, and very rare they mu$t necessarily be, where a person is required to be transferred to another local cadre on a longer term basis. Clear reasons for such long term transfer must not only exist but must be clearly recorded. In any case wherever such transfer, be it for a short term or longer term, the transfers made in the circumstances set out in para 5(2)(a) to (c) being on administrative exigencies, must enable person so transferred to carry the benefit of his P.V. RADHA KRISHNA AND ORS. v. STATE OF A.P. AND ORS. [GS. SINGHVI, J.] seniority to the transferred local cadre. To this extent Rule 3 of the Rules made under the Act 1985 must be held to be valid. In the case of a transfer on reciprocal basis,· para 5(2)(d) itself mandates that the person transferred shall be assigned seniority in the later cadre with effect from the date of his transfer to such cadre. Rule 3 of the Rules made under the Act 1985 would have no application in such a case and the provisions of para 5(2)(d) would operate. We are of the opinion that even in respect of a transfer under para 5(2)(d) the principles/guidelines for allotment in para c 4(2) should be borne in mind and reciprocal transfers should not be freely approved which would gravely disrupt the need for composition of balance cadre having regard to age and seniority or the administrative needs of the posts in the local cadre.

24. On the question whether there is a separate cadre for Hyderabad City Police or the same falls in Zone-VI which includes District of Hyderabad, the Full Bench observed as under: "Nothing has been placed before this court to demonstrate that any appointment of police officers have been made only under the provisions of either the. Hyderabad City Police Act 1348 Fasli but they have been made also under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) District Police Act 1859 or the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) District Police Act 1349 Fasli. All appointments have been made under the relevant Rules made under provision to Art. 309 of the Constitution including the Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules; Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules; Andhra Pradesh Police (Armed Reserve) Service Rules; Andhra Pradesh (Communications) Subordinate Service Rules; Andhra Pradesh Police (Computer Centre) Service Rules and the Andhra Pradesh Police (Computer Centre) Subordinate Service Rules, etc. Sec 3(b) of Hyderabad City Police Act 1348 f.asli defines a Police Officer to include.every member of the City Police Force appointed under this Act as also the Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad, the Deputy or Assistant Commissioner of PQlice and subject to provisions of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 9 and sub-sec.(2) of Sec. 10 every person who has been appointed as an Additional or Special Police Officer. Sec. 7 of this Act vests in the Commissioner of City Police the power to appoint' and promote Inspector of Police, Sub Inspector of Police and c other subordinates of the force and empowers the Government to appoint the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Police. Sections 9 and 10 provide the power to appoint Additional Police Officer and Special Police respectively. No Police Officer has been appointed under the provisions of this Act. All recruitments are notified and appointment made under the Special Rules made under the provision to Art 309 of the Constitution. Thus, though the post of a Police Officer as defined in Sec. 3(b) of the Hyderabad City Police Act 1348 Fasli is beyond the purview of the Presidential Order in view of para 14 of the said Order, there is in fact no Police Officer as defined in Sec. 3(b) of the Hyderabad City Police Act 1348 Fasli, factually in existence. As there has been no constitution of a separate- cadre for the city of Hyderabad for members of the Police Force in terms of para 3(6) of the Presidential Order, members of the police force allotted or recruited to Hyderabad 1nust be construed as having been so allotted or. recruited to either the District cadre of Hyderabad or zonal cadr~ of Zone VI viz Hyderabad, Nizamabad, Mahabubnagar, Medak and Nalgonda Districts, as the case may be, depending upon the rank they hold, whether it is a District cadre post or a Zonal cadre post. The post of an Inspector of Police in the Police P.V. RADHA KRISHNA AND ORS. v. STATE OF A.P. 213 AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] department having been specified as item 51 of the 3rd Schedule and being a specified gazetted category in terms of para 2(1)0) read with 3(4) of the Presidential Order and —-t being required therefore, to be organized into a zonal cadre of Inspector of Police including those working for the …… since as pait of the Hyderabad city police, have to be considered as members of Zone VI which includes the District of Hyderabad. They do not fall within the provisions of para 14 of the Presidential Order. The transfers from ._ and to the establishments and units of Hyderabad City ….,. Police therefore fall within the parameters of para 5(2)(c) c to (d). A person once allotted to one zone and attached to his post must be said to be belonging to the same zone and he has no right to come to any other cadre, which is not organized one. We may notice that no separate organization has come into being in terms of para 3(1) of the Presidenti~I · Order. Para 3(3) of the said order refers-to the zonal posts. …. Para 3(5) apply to both gazetted and non-gazetted posts . Although a power has been conferred in Para 3(6) to create a separate cadre of posts which has to be organized for the city of Hyderabad, no such cadre has come into being. Further, in terms of notification for the purpose of organization of a separate cadre for the city of Hyderabad. Para 3(5) will have application only in relation to the said local cadres, which have been organized in respect of any -<" – category of posts. Such local cadre would be a separate unit inter alia for the purposes of recruitment, appointment, discharge; seniority, promotion and transfer …………. '."-.. In terms of the II Schedule there are only six zones. The city of Hyderabad comes within the purview of Zone VI. The city of Hyderabad, although loosely treated as a separate zone, but no such separate zone has been created. The city of Hyderabad therefore comes within the purview of Zone VI only."

25. The Full Bench then recorded 13 conclusions including the following, which are under challenge in these appeals: "(b) No separate cadre has been organised for the City of Hyderabad within the meaning of para 3(6) of the Presidential Order. (c) No recruitment to the post of a police officer as defined in Sec. 3(b) of Hyderabad City. Police Act 1348 Fasli has been made and there is thus factually no incumbent of the post of police officer t ;-.. c under para 14(f) of the Presidential Order. (d) Inspectors of Police working in the Hyderabad City Police establishments either on promotion to that post or by direct recruitment, must be considered as belonging to Zone VI in the zonal cadre." -I·

26. Shri L. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants referred to clause (10) of Article 3710, paragraph 11 of the Presidential Order and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No.890/ 1975 and argued that when the Parliament has unequivocally recognized the primacy of the provisions contained in the Presidential Order, exclusion clause contained in paragraph 14(f) thereof is required to be given full effect and the Full Bench committed serious error by indirectly bringing the post of Police F Officer as defined in Section 3(b) of the Hyderabad Act in the . · scheme of localization/zonalisation of cadres. Learned senior counsel emphasized that the appellants were recruited as Sub- Inspectors for Hyderabad City Police which does not fall in any of the zones carved out for localization of different cadres and …. G argued that the Full Bench erred in holding that no separate cadre was constituted for Hyderabad City Police. Shri Nageshwar Rao made a pointed reference to G.D. Ms. No.795 dated 30.6.1976 to show that in the scheme of organization of local cadres for non-gazetted posts of the police department, P.V. RADHA KRISHNA AND ORS. v. STATE OF A.P. AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] f… it was specifically mentioned that any post of Police Officer as defined in Section 3(b) of the Hyderabad Act is outside the purview of the Presidential Order and the same shall apply to remaining offices of the police department mentioned in paragraph 4. Learned counsel then submitted that even while forming new police ranges vide G.O. Ms. No.1697 Home dated 10.12.1975, a separate range i.e., City Range was carved out for Hyderabad, Secunderabad and other areas mentioned in First Schedule to the Presidential Order and argued that by declaring that members of police force allotted or recruited to Hyderabad must be construed as having been so allotted or c recruited to either the district cadre of Hyderabad or zonal cadre of Zone VI i.e., Hyderabad, Nizamabda, Mahabubnagar, Medak and Nalgonda districts, the Full Bench has virtually negated the exclusion clause contained in paragraph 14(f) of the Presidential Order and, at the same time, made the creation of City Range redundant. Learned senior counsel argued that in view of the exclusion clause contained in paragraph 14(f) of the Presidential Order, the posts of Constable, Head Constable, Sub-Inspector and Inspector of Hyderabad City Police are not covered by the scheme of localization/ zonalisation and the same cannot be treated as part of Zone VI as has been done by the Full Bench of the High Court. Shri Nageshwar Rao submitted that not only the post of Police Officer as defined in Section 3(b) of the Hyderabad Act but various other posts in the Secretariat of the State Government, in the offices of Heads of Department, Special Office or Establishment etc. are excluded from the purview of the Presidential Order and till the pronouncement of the Full Bench, recruitment to all the posts enumerated in paragraph 14(f) of ,-::,. the Presidential Order was being made without any preference being given to local candidates. He also referred to the counter G affidavits filed on behalf of the State Government and Commissioner of Police in the O.As. filed· by the private respondents to show that it has been the consistent stand of the official respondents that Hyd~rabad City Police has been treated as free zone and the vacancies in respect of posts of Hyderabad City Police are notified separately and selection to various cadres are being conducted for appointment for Hyderabad City Police only.

27. Shri Anoop G. Choudhari, learned senior counsel B appearing for the State submitted that even though in terms of Section 7 of the Hyderabad Act, the power to appoint an Inspector, Sub-Inspector and other subordinate of the force vested in the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, after framing of Special Rules for Police Subordinate Service, the said power can be exercised by other designated authorities and, c therefore, those appointed on subordinate posts in Hyderabad City Police cannot be treated as part of separate cadre. Shri Choudhari further submitted that the exclusion clause contained in paragraph 14(f) could operate only if a separate cadre had been carved out for Hyderabad City and submitted that in the absence of any recruitment having been made for Hyderabad -t- City Police, the Full Bench rightly treated the Inspectors of Police working in Hyderabad City Police establishment. as belonging to Zone VI In the zonal cadre

28. We have given serious thought to the entire matter. It is not in dispute that the Presidential· Order was issued for providing equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State in the matters of public employment and education and by virtue of clause (10) of Article F 371 D, overriding effect has been given to the Presidential Order qua other constitutional and statutory provisions. For achieving the objective set out in clause (1) of Article 371 D, provisions have been made in the Presidential Order for localization/ zonalization of cadres and giving preference to the candidates belonging to the particular local area. Paragraph 3 of the G Presidel'}tial Order postulates organization of local cadres for different. posts. Paragraph 5(1) thereof declares that each part of the State, for which a local cadre has been organized in respect of any category of posts, shall be a separate unit for purposes of recruitment, appointment, discharge, seniority, P.V. RADHA KRISHNA AND ORS. v. STATE OF A.P . 217 AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] promotion, transfer and other matters, as may be specified by the Government in respect of that category of posts. Paragraph 5(2) empowers the State Government to make provision for transfer of employees in different contingencies. Paragraph 6(1) defines local areas. Paragraph,6(2) lays down that each zone shall be regarded as local area for specified purposes. However, two exceptions have been carved out in the Presidential Order in respect of certain categories of posts for the City of Hyderabad. One such exception is discernible from the language of paragraphs 3(6) and 6(3). In terms of sub- paragraph (6) of paragraph 3, the Central Government is c empowered to notify the departments in which and categories of posts for which a separate cadre is required to be recognized for the City of Hyderabad. This sub-paragraph also lays down that on such notification being issued the post belonging to each such category and in each such department 4– in the City of Hyderabad (other than those concerned with the administration of areas falling outside the said City) shall be organized into a separate cadre and the posts so organized shall be excluded from other cadres. In terms of paragraph 6 of the Presidential Order, each district and each zone is regarded as local area but by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) thereof, the City of Hyderabad is regarded as a local area for direct recruitment to posts in any cadre under the State Government comprising all or any of the posts in the said city, in the departments and belonging to the categories notified under paragraph 3(6). The city is also excluded from the local area relatable to any other local cadre comprising posts in the departments belonging to the categories notified in terms of sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 6. The other exception 'is in __, the form of exclusion clause contained in paragraph 14(f) which operates on its own and does not depend on the issue of G notification by the Central Government. By virtue of that paragraph, the provisions contained in the Presidential Order have been made inapplicable to the specified posts, which include any post of Police Officer as defined in clause (b) of Section 3 of the Hyderabad Act. This was made more explicit A by paragraph 8 of G.O.P. No.728 dated 1.11.1975 issued by the Government of India, paragraphs 5 and 21 of G.O. Ms. No.729 dated 1.11.1975 and paragraph 2 of G.O. Ms. No.730 of the same date (both issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh). When G.O. Ms. No.795 dated 30.6. 1.976 was issued B incorporating therein the scheme for organization of local ..;. cadres for non-gazetted categories of posts (both Executive and Ministerial) and other posts equivalent to or lower than Lower Division Clerk, the post of Police Officer as defined in clause (b) of Section 3 of the Hyderabad Act was specifically c excluded. In paragraph 16 of G.O. Ms. No.795, it was made clear that as no separate cadre for the City of Hyderabad needs to be organized for the police department and only ministerial staff of the office of Commissioner of Police will be included in Zone VI. The posts of the Police Officers of Hyderabad City D were not shown in the cadre strength of the localized cadres contained in Annexures IV, V, XII and XIII appended to G.O. Ms. No. 795. This was so because there was no localization of Hyderabad City Police cadres. This was also the reason why a separate range Le., City Range was created for Hyderabad, E Secunderabad and other areas mentioned in First Schedule to· the Presidential Order.

29. From what we have noted above, it is evident that the post of Police Officer of Hyderabad City as defined in Section 3(b) was not included in the process of localization of cadres F undertaken in terms of paragraphs 3 and 6 of the Presidential Order. The localii:ation/zonalization of subordinate cadres in the police department was effected for six zones/ranges but the same was not applicable to Hyderabad City Police. If this was not so, there was no reason to exclude posts earmarked for ….. G Hyderabad _City from the statement of cadre strength of localized cadres enumerated in various Annexures appended to G.O. Ms. No. 795 dated 30.6.1976. The object of exclusion of certain posts from the purview of the Presidential Order and consequently from the scheme of localization/zonalization H required to be undertaken in terms of paragraphs 3 and 6 P.V. RADHA KRISHNA AND ORS. v. STATE OF A.P. AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] thereof was to make recruitment against such posts open for p. all without giving any preference to any local candidate. The reason why special status was given to the posts located in the specified departments of Hyderabad City, which is capital of the State, was that there should be no monopoly of candidates belonging to any particular area of the State in the matter of recruitment etc. against those posts and all eligible candidates must get opportunity to compete for selection and appointment.

30. It is also significant to note that after promulgation of the Presidential Order, Hyderabad City has throughout been c treated as an independent zone or free zone till the impugned judgment was pronounced and recruitment to the post of Police Officer as defined in Section 3(b) of the Hyderabad Act was made separately. This was the categorical stand taken by the official respondents before the Tribunal while contesting the O.A. of the private respondents. In reply to paragraph 6 of the O.A. filed by Sardar Harihar Singh, it was specifically averred on behalf of the State that vacancies in respect of posts of Hyderabad City Police are notified separately and selections/ appointments to the posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police, Civil and Reserve Sub-Inspector, CAR and Police Constable of both Civil and CAR to the extent of vacancies are conducted separately and all six zones and Hyderabad City Police are separate zones for all service matters i.e., appointments, promotions, etc. and Hyderabad City Police is not part and parcel of Zone VI. The contra stand taken in the counter affidavits filed before this Court is inexplicable and is liable to be discarded.

31. We shall now consider whether conclusions (b), (c) and (d) recorded by the Full Bench of the High Court are legally correct and sustainable. The observations of the Full Bench that no separate cadre has been organized and no Police Officer has been appointed under the Hyderabad Act is based on the premise that in the advertisement issued for recruitment of Police Officers and appointment orders of the appellants and A other similarly situated persons, reference has not been made to Hyderabad Act. While doing so, the Full Bench omitted to take note of the fact that in terms of Section 7 of the Hyderabad Act, powers to appoint and promote Inspector, Sub-Inspector and other subordinates of the police force vests in the B Commissioner of City Police Hyderabad and the said Section finds specific mention in the preamble to the Special Rules framed in 1959. Rule 3 of those Rules clearly lays down that as far as Hyderabad City Police is concerned, the Commissioner of Police shall be the appointing authority of y c Sub-Inspectors of Police etc. and by virtue of that power, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad has been making appointments on various subordinate posts including those of Sub-Inspectors. In the advertisement of 1985 pursuant to which the appellants were appointed as Sub-Inspectors, 93 posts ·o were separately earmarked for Hyderabad City which, for the _4 sake of convenience, was described as Zone VII or free zone. Even in the subsequent advertisements issued in 1991 and 1994, the vacancies of Sub-Inspectors were separately earmarked for Hyderabad City Police Range. The orders of appointment of the appellants were issued by the Commissioner of Police. This shows that a/separate cadre has been carved out for Hyderabad City Police and recruitment to the post of Police Officer as defined in Section 3(b) of the Hyderabad Act has been made by the designated competent j authority in terms of Section 7 thereof. Therefore, the Full Bench was not justified in curtailing the width and scope of the exclusion clause contained in paragraph 14(f) of the Presidential Order by holding that there is no separate cadre of Hyderabad City Police and there is no incumbent of the post of Police Officers as defined in Section 3(b) of the Hyderabad G Act.

32. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the conclusions recorded by the Full Bench that no separate cadre has been organized for the City of Hyderabad within the H meaning of paragraph 3(6) of the Presidential Order; that no .. ' P.V. RADHA KRISHNA AND ORS. v. STATE OF AP. 221 AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] recruitment to the post of Police Officer as defined in Section ,..::… 3(b) of the Hyderabad Act has been made and there is factually .. , no incumbent of the post of Police Officer under paragraph 14(f) of the Presidential Order and that the Inspectors of Police working in the Hyderabad City Police establishment either on promotion to that post or by direct recruitment must be considered as belonging to Zone VI in the zonal cadre cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside .

33. In the result, the appeals are allowed and conclusions (b), (c) and (d) recorded in the impugned judgment are set aside. The parties are left to bear their own costs. K.K.T. Appeals allowed.