THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR W.P.No.27022 of 2011 Date: 28.09.2011 Between: T. Shivashankar Reddy … Petitioner AND The State of A.P. rep.by its Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 6 others … Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Writ Petition No.27022 of 2011 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.G. Shankar) This Writ of Certiorari is directed against the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal), which dismissed the application of the writ petitioner herein. The writ petitioner applied for the post of School Assistant in Sanskrit as a local candidate for the District of Anantapur. The application was in response to the notification of the Government in DSC-2008. The writ petitioner, indeed, was selected as a School Assistant (Sanskrit) on 15.10.2009. 2. Subsequently, the third respondent issued proceedings in Rc.No.3546/A2/DSC/2008, dated 27.01.2011. Pursuant to the proceedings dated 27.01.2011, a show cause notice was served upon the writ petitioner on 24.02.2011 directing the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why his services should not be terminated as he was found to be a non-local candidate for the district of Anantapur. The third respondent later passed proceedings in Rc.No.3546/A2/ DSC/2008, dated 05.03.2011 terminating the services of the writ petitioner on the ground that the writ petitioner was a local candidate of Chittoor District and was a non-local candidate of Anantapur District and holding that the appointment of the writ petitioner as a local candidate for the Anantapur District for the post of School Assistant (Sanskrit) was erroneous holding that the applicant was a local candidate of Chittoor District within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment [Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment] Order, 1975 (the Presidential Order’ for short). Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 05.03.2011, the writ petitioner preferred application in O.A.No.1706 of 2011 before the Tribunal. Considering that the writ petitioner was, indeed, a local candidate of Chittoor District only and not of Anantapur District, the Tribunal dismissed the application. It is this order that the writ petitioner assails before us. 3. The fundamental question is whether the writ petitioner is a local candidate of Anantapur District or Chittoor District. If the writ petitioner is a local candidate of Anantapur District, his appointment as School Assistant would be valid as the same was made treating him as a local candidate of Anantapur District. On the other hand, if the writ petitioner is a local candidate of Chittoor District, his appointment would be invalid as he was appointed as a local candidate of Anantapur District. 4. The writ petitioner admittedly studied from 1st class to 5th class and 10th class within Anantapur District. He studied from 6th class to 9th class in Chittoor District. He is said to be a native of P. Narayanapuram Vilalge, Koderu Mandal, Anantapur District. His contention is that as he studied for six years in Anantapur District (i.e., from 1st class to 5th class and 10th class), he is a local candidate of Anantapur District and that his appointment as the School Assistant as a local candidate of Anantapur District is valid. 5. Para 7 of the Presidential Order deals with the definition of a local candidate. The relevant part of para 7 of the Presidential Order reads: “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 posts. (i) If he has 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; 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 eh 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. Explanations:-- For the purpose 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 a n examination declared by the State Government to be equivalent to the Matriculation examination; which is lower; and (iii) in reckoning the consecutive academic years during which a candidate has studied, any period of interruption of his study be reason of his failure to pass any examination shall be disregarded. (iv) The question, whether any candidate for direct recruitment to any post has resided in any local area shall be determined with reference to the places where the candidate actually resided and not with reference to the residence of his parents or other guardian (Vide G.O.Ms.No.18, G.A. (SPF.A) Dept. dt.10-3-77).” 6. The local candidature is determined on the basis of ‘continuous study’ for a period of four years in a local area according to para-7 (1)(a)(i). Para 7 (1) deals with study in one or more educational institutions for a period of not less than four academic years consecutively ending with the academic year in which the candidate appeared for the ‘qualifying examination’. Explanation (ii) of para 7 (1) exemplified ‘qualifying examination’ as the minimum examination required to be passed to become qualified for the post for which the candidate is seeking appointment or matriculation or its equivalent (SSC) whichever is lower. The DSC notification issued by the Director of School Education prescribes a Bachelor’s Degree in Sanskrit or a Bachelor’s of Degree in Oriental Language in Sanskrit or its equivalent as the minimum educational qualification for the post of School Assistant (Sanskrit). Consequently, in view of explanation (ii) (b), 10th class shall be treated as qualifying examination to determine whether the writ petitioner is a local candidate within the meaning of Presidential Order. 7. As already pointed out, the petitioner should have put up more than four years of continuous academic career in the District of Anantapur ending with 10th class to be a local candidate within the meaning of the definition of local candidate under the Presidential Order. Where admittedly the petitioner studied from 6th class to 9th class in Chittoor District and 10th class in Anantapur District, the petitioner did not satisfy the Rule of four years academic exposure within the district of Anantapur District for being qualified as a local candidate of Anantapur District. 8. Sri M. Ratna Reddy, inter alia, claimed that the petitioner became neither here nor there on account of studies partly in Chittoor District and partly in Anantapur District and that he is liable to be treated as a candidate of Anantapur District as he is not only a native of Anantapur District but also studied from 1st class to 5th class and 10th class in Anantapur District. He further pointed out that a residential certificate was issued by the competent authority and that even on the strength of the certificate, he should be treated as a local candidate of Anantapur District. 9. We are afraid that the certificate of residence would be relevant to determine the candidature of the applicant under para 7 (1)(a)(ii) of the Order whereunder the certificate of residence determines the local candidature if the candidate had not studied in any educational institution during the relevant period. Admittedly, the petitioner did not study privately from 1st class to 10th class. The petitioner claimed that he studied up to 10th class in educational institutions in Anantapur District and Chittoor District respectively. Where the petitioner attended educational institutions till his 10th class, the certificate of residence has no validity and relevance under para 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Presidential Order. It is to be merely examined whether the petitioner satisfied the conditions prescribed by para 7 (1) (a) (ii) read with 7 (1) explanation (ii) (b). Consequently, the limited issue is whether the petitioner studied for four consecutive academic years continuously counted back from his 10th class in Anantapur District to be a local candidate of Anantapur District. Admittedly, the petitioner studied from 6th to 9th class in Chittoor District. Consequently, the petitioner did not satisfy para 7 (1)(a)(i) of the Presidential Order to be a local candidate of Anantapur District. We consider that the petitioner was a local candidate of Chittoor District within the meaning of para 7 of the Presidential Order. However, it is beside the point. The limited examination of the present case is to determine whether the petitioner is a local candidate of Anantapur District or otherwise. In view of his own admission that he studied from 6th class to 9th class in Chittoor District and first class to 5th class and 10th class in Anantapur District, the petitioner cannot be considered to be a local candidate of Anantapur District in respect of para 7 of the Presidential Order. The learned administrative member of the Tribunal perfectly appreciated this situation and dismissed the application of the writ petitioner. The order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law and mis-appreciating of fact or law. We, therefore, see no merits in this writ petition. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) Date: .09.2011 Isn/Ys