THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.1852 of 2008 Date: 13-02-2008. Between 1. The Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and 2 others … Petitioners and P.Vidhya Latha, R/o.H.No.4-180, Kapul Street, Ravulapalem, East Godavari District … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.1852 of 2008 Oral Order: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for petitioners-respondents and Smt. Shoba N, learned Counsel appearing for respondent-applicant. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 06-3-2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), in disposing of the application O.A.No.7041 of 2005 filed by the applicant, with a direction to treat the applicant’s case afresh look into the matter, and pass appropriate orders, without reference to the impugned orders, passed by the respondents therein. 3. The petitioners herein are respondents 1 to 3 and the respondent is applicant in the O.A., before the Tribunal. 4. The facts, in brief, are that the District Selection Committee (for brevity ‘DSC’) has issued a Notification on 13-11-2003, inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers and School Assistants. The applicant had requisite qualification under Rules, which fact is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that she passed SSC in 1994, graduated from Andhra University, obtained Master’s Degree from Andhra University and also passed B.Ed., degree from Andhra University. At the time of applying for the post of School Assistant, along with the application, the applicant also submitted Study Certificate evidencing the factum of local candidature. Of course, she could not initially produce the original certificate, but filed the certified copy. However, she was permitted to appear for the written test conducted on 04-4-2004. Eventually, she was declared as provisionally selected for the post of School Assistant (English). Subsequently, she received proceedings, dated 08-4-2005, from the District Educational Officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada (petitioner No.3 herein) stating that on verification, she was found to be a non-local candidate of East Godavari District and hence, she did not come up for selection zone and on that score, her provisional selection was cancelled. Hence she filed the O.A. 5. It was the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Education (Services) appearing for respondents before the Tribunal that the applicant was found to be ‘not qualified’ on account of her Study Certificate from Classes IV to VII, which shows that she prosecuted her studies in an unrecognized educational institution. 6. It is to be remembered that the applicant prosecuted her studies in an unrecognized educational institution up to SSC. As already pointed out, subsequently she was graduated, post graduated and graduated in Education as well from recognized educational institutions. 7. The Tribunal, having gone into the issue, found that there was no such distinction between the recognized educational institution and unrecognized educational institution up to SSC and eventually, allowed the O.A. 8. Challenging the said finding that there is no distinction in the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 (for brevity ‘the Presidential Order’), as regards the recognized educational institution and unrecognized educational institution, the present writ petition is filed. 9. The only point that is urged before this Court is that the Tribunal was wrong in recording a finding that there is no distinction between ‘recognized’ and ‘unrecognized’ educational institutions. 10. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for petitioners places reliance on para-7 sub-para 2(a)(i) of the Presidential Order, which is extracted hereunder: “Para 7. Local Candidate :-- (1) ……………………………………………………………………………… (a) ……………………………………………………………………….. (i) ……………………………………………………….. (ii) ……………………………………………………….. (b) ……………………………………………………………………….. (c) ……………………………………………………………………….. (2) A candidate for direct recruitment to any post who is not regarded as a local candidate under sub-paragraph (1) in relation to any local area, shall – (a) In cases where a minimum educational qualification has been prescribed for recruitment to the post -- (i) if he has studied in educational institutions in the State for a period of not less than seven consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination, be regarded as local candidate in relation to -- (1) such local area where he has studied for the maximum period out of the said period of seven years; or (2) ………………………………………………………………….. (ii) …………………………………………………………………………….” 11. He also brings to the notice of this Court that ‘educational institution’ has been defined at explanation to para 7, which is as under: “Explanation :-- For the purposes of this paragraph— (i) ‘educational institution’ means a University or any educational institution recognized by the State Government, a University or other competent authority; (ii) ‘relevant qualifying examination’ in relation to a post means— (A) the examination, a pass in which is the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post; (B) the Matriculation examination or an examination declared by the State Government to be equivalent to the Matriculation examination; whichever is lower; (iii) …………………………………………………………………. (iv) …………………………………………………………………” 12. From a reading of the said provision, we have no hesitation to hold that there is a clear distinction between ‘recognized’ and ‘unrecognized’ educational institutions and absolutely, there is no ambiguity whatsoever, calling for interference, by way of interpreting the said provisions, by this Court. 13. It is also not in dispute and also as could be seen from the record placed before the Tribunal that the applicant had submitted application for the post of School Assistant (English) along with relevant certificates demonstrating that she prosecuted her studies up to M.A., and B.Ed., in a span of 7 years preceding the date of qualifying examination i.e., B.Ed., in East Godavari District only. 14. Therefore, viewed from any angle and notwithstanding the distinction between ‘recognized’ and ‘unrecognized’ educational institutions, by virtue of the operation of the other provisions of Para-7 of the Presidential Order i.e., the place of residence in the preceding 4 years from the date of qualifying examination, we have to necessarily hold that the case of the applicant has to be considered, as was decided by the Tribunal. 15. However, as contended by the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for petitioners that the distinction between ‘recognized’ and ‘unrecognized’ educational institutions was not understood in proper perspective by the Tribunal. In our considered view, there is a distinction between these two in clear terms in the rules of the Presidential Order. 16. Therefore, we are impelled to agree with the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for petitioners to that extent and as a matter of fact, the contention of the petitioners both before the Tribunal as well as this Court is mainly on the aspect of the said distinction only. 17. But, having regard to the totality of circumstances, which are on record, no further clarification is required and the Tribunal though was wrong in stating that there was no distinction between ‘recognized’ and ‘unrecognized’ educational institutions, on other counts, the case of the applicant has to be considered essentially. 18. Accordingly, with the above clarification and observations, suffice it to dispose of the writ petition, at the stage of admission, with a direction to the petitioners to implement the impugned order of the Tribunal within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 19. Since we are informed that in the contempt case moved by the applicant before the Tribunal, the concerned officials are required to appear tomorrow i.e., on 14-02-2008, we are compelled to clarify that any contempt proceedings pending before the Tribunal do not survive in view of the final orders passed by this Court in the present writ petition. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 13th February, 2008. Ak Note:- Issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) Ak