HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.5628 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 29-01-2011 insofar as appointment of 2nd respondent is concerned as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows: - The petitioner, who belongs to B.C.’E’ category, is a resident of Mahabubnagar District. She was appointed as Junior Assistant on contract basis and was working in the office of Associate Director of Research, Regional Agricultural Research Station, Palem, Mahabubnagar District. While so, the first respondent herein issued advertisement, dated 27.09.2010, inviting applications for 100 posts of Junior Assistants-cum-Typist, which have been divided into various zones. For Zone-VII, which includes the districts of Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Ranga Reddy and Hyderabad, shown as Southern Telangana Zone, 31 posts were advertised and one post was reserved for B.C. ‘E’ (women) category. It is the case of the petitioner that since she fulfilled all the qualifications prescribed in the said advertisement, she applied for the post of Junior Assistant and as she was successful in written test, she was called for an interview. Later, she was not selected for the said post. Therefore, she obtained a copy of the selection proceedings and on verification of the same, she found that the second respondent, who is a non-local, was selected under B.C. ‘E’ (women) category. As such, she gave a representation, dated 04.01.2011, to the first respondent bringing to his notice that non-locals are appointed ignoring the locals and cited the specific example of the 2nd respondent herein. She also filed the SSC Certificate and other educational certificates of the second respondent to prove that the second respondent is a non-local and that apart, the second respondent has been residing in Budwel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for the last four years only. But, the first respondent showing her as a local candidate, selected and appointed her. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she has filed the documents viz., SSC Certificate etc., to the effect that the second respondent is a non-local candidate, the first respondent did not consider the said documents and objections and appointed the second respondent as Junior Assistant against local candidate reserved for B.C. ‘E’ (women) category. It is further alleged that several such irregularities have been committed and as many as 20 non-locals were appointed in the place of locals. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking the aforesaid relief. 3. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the candidates were selected to the posts basing on merit only. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent produced a nativity certificate issued by the Deputy Collector and Tahasildar, Rajendranagar Mandal i.e. Zone-VII, along with her application and based on that certificate she was considered for appointment as local candidate. When the candidates submitted their nativity certificates, then there is no need for them to produce study certificates. Further, she was working as ‘casual labour’ in the 1st respondent University since 1993. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is considered to be a local candidate. Further, so far as the allegation with regard to the selection process is concerned, in the merit list, name of the 2nd respondent is stood at number 1 as she obtained 94 marks in total, whereas the petitioner’s name was place in number 2. Therefore, the appointment of the 2nd respondent was made purely on the basis of merit and on consideration of her nativity. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The 2nd respondent also filed a separate counter affidavit by almost reiterating the averments stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent and further stated that she has completed SSC from Guntakal, Anantapur District, but it was in the year 1984 and after she got married, she shifted to Hyderabad and started residing at Humayun Nagar, Hydeabad since 1988. She further contended that when she applied for nativity certificate, she was issued the same showing that her native state as Andhra Pradesh. Since the said certificate did not disclose the Ward, Mandal and District, she again applied for nativity certificate requesting the Tahsildar to mention all the necessary details. Then she was issued another certificate dated 22-12-2010 showing her residence under Ward No.22 of Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. But, the petitioner suppressing the said fact, misguides the Hon’ble Court by filing first nativity certificate. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition and the same is misconceived. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent-university and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the material available on record. 6. Admittedly, one post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist for B.C. ‘E’ (Women) category along with other posts was notified by the 1st respondent, for which, both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent applied for the same. The 2nd respondent was appointed as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist by the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent studied S.S.C. in the year 1984 in Railway High School, Guntakal and prosecuted her further studies in higher secondary education in Maharashtra. The main contention of the petitioner is that since the case of the 2nd respondent does not fit into para 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975, which is otherwise known as Presidential Order (herein after referred to as ‘Presidential Order’), her appointment is illegal and the petitioner, who is a local candidate, is entitled to be appointed. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case of the 2nd respondent does not fit into the sub para-1 of para-7 of the Presidential Order as she has admittedly not studied for four consecutive academic years prior to the qualifying examination i.e. matriculation ending with the academic year in which she appeared. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the 2nd respondent has studied the four consecutive academic years in Anantapur District, she becomes a local in respect of Anantapur District and as such she cannot be claimed as a local in other districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh. 8. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent contended that since the 2nd respondent produced a residence certificate issued by the competent revenue officials, she has been treated as a local candidate and as such the order of appointment was given and that appointment of 2nd respondent is completely in accordance with the provisions under the Presidential Order. 9. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that though the 2nd respondent has not studied in any one of the Districts of zone-VII in any four consecutive academic years, she is a resident of Rajendranagar in Ranga Reddy District and for the purpose of prosecuting her education she might have gone to Anantapur, and that as on the date of notification, she was residing at Rajendranagar for the major period out of seven years and therefore, by virtue of para 7 (2) (a) (ii), it is clear that the place of residence can also be considered for the purpose of determining local candidate status, and that in view of the fact that the competent revenue official has given a certificate dated 19-10-2010 certifying that the 2nd respondent was residing for the last four years in Ranga Reddy District, she can be treated as a local candidate and the 1st respondent has rightly treated her as a local candidate of Zone VII, and therefore, the appointment of the 2nd respondent cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. 10. It is not in dispute that Zone VII consists of Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Ranga Reddy and Hyderabad Districts. The Interpretation of para-7 of the presidential order is the crux of the matter, which decides the issue. Para-7 of the Presidential Order reads as follows: “Para 7. Local candidate :- (1) A candidate for direct recruitment to any post shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to a local area— (a) in cases where a minimum educational qualification has been prescribed for recruitment to the post— (i) if he has studied in an educational institution or education institutions in such local area for a period of less than four 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 ; or (ii) where during the whole or any part of the four 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 he has not studied in any educational institution, if he has resided in that local area for a period of not less than four years immediately preceding the date of commencement of the qualifying examination in which he appeared or as the case may be, first appeared. (b) In cases where no minimum educational qualification has been prescribed for recruitment to the post, if he has resided in that local area for a period of not less than four years immediately preceding the date on which the post is notified for recruitment. (c) In cases where visually handicapped and hearing handicapped persons studied in the special schools meant for them, the native place of the parents of such visually handicapped and hearing handicapped persons. (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) where the period of his study in two or more local areas are equal, such local areas where he has studied last in such equal periods : (ii) if, during the whole or any part of the 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, he has not studied in the educational institutions in any local area, but has resided in the State during the whole of the said period of seven years, be regarded as a local candidate in relation to— (1) such local area where he has resided for a maximum period out of the said period of seven years” (emphasis supplied) 11. Para 7 (1) (a) (i) of the Presidential Order applies to the cases where a person/a candidate studied in an educational institution or educational institutions in such local area for a period of not less than four 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. Therefore, it applies to a person where he claims as local candidate on the basis of his study of four consecutive academic years. 12. Para 7 (2) applies to the candidates when he is not regarded as a local candidate under para 7 (1), but where he has resided in the State during the whole of the said period of seven years, be regarded as a local candidate in relation to such local area where he has resided for a maximum period out of the said period of seven years. So if these two clauses have read, it leaves no room to doubt that in two circumstances, a candidate can claim himself as a local candidate; (1) if he has studied four consecutive academic years in a particular local area and, (2) if he has resided in a local area for a maximum period out of seven years. Therefore, the criterion laid down in paragraph-7 is based upon both on study and also on residence within a particular local area. 13. In case of a candidate fails to establish that he is a local candidate basing on the study of four consecutive academic years, then the candidate can also be claimed as local candidate basing on his residence. In such case, the residence test has to be applied, in case, the candidate fails to fulfill the sub paragraph (1) of para-7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the purpose of claiming local candidate status, only the study for the four consecutive academic years preceding the qualified examination has to be taken into consideration can be accepted. If that is accepted, in the Presidential Order, sub-para (2) would not have been incorporated which clearly provides for a person to claim local candidate status basing on residence. The contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent appears to be correct. If the candidate has resided in a particular area during the whole of the said period of seven years, out of which, the maximum period he resided as provided in Para 7 (2) (a) (ii), then he is also to be considered as a local candidate can also be accepted. 14. A plain reading of Explanation of paragraph-7 of the Presidential Order would clearly go to show the relevant qualifying examination in relation to a post which 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; This explanation would apply to the paragraph-7 as this explanation is provided for the purpose of this paragraph. So the minimum educational qualification for the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist, is Graduation. But at the same time, for the purpose of determining the local candidate, the consecutive educational study preceding the Graduation is not necessary in view of the fact that the matriculation examination or its equivalent examination has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining whether a person falls within the category of local or not. Therefore, the paragraph-7, if read with the Explanation in juxtra position as they have got to be, it is clear that a candidate must have studied four consecutive academic years preceding the matriculation or equivalent examination. 15. Though the 2nd respondent has not studied four consecutive academic years preceding matriculation examination, sub para (1) of paragraph 7 has no application to the case of the 2nd respondent. By virtue of para 7 (2) (a) (ii), if the residence test is applied to the candidate who have resided in the prescribed period of over four years which is the majority period out of seven years, such a candidate can also be a local candidate by virtue of residence. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted that residence is not a criteria for determining the local candidate status of a candidate. Hence, Para 7 (2) (a) (i) (1) is very clear that “such local area where he has studied for the maximum period out of the said period of seven years” to deal with the situation where one who resides in a local area. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Paragraph 9 of the definition of “Local Candidate” in G.O.Ps.No.729, dated 01-11-1975, which reads as follows: This paragraph does not support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the same would clearly go to show that the residence test is to be applied to all the candidates who have failed to put in the prescribed period of education in a particular area. Therefore, the 1st respondent considering the residence certificate issued by the Tahsildar has given appointment to the 2nd respondent and that appointment cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to any of the provisions. Hence, there are no grounds in interfere with the appointment of the 2nd respondent. 17. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 20th June 2011 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/o. kvr