THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.26883 OF 2011 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) Pursuant to notification issued by the competent authority for the purpose of Multi Purpose Health Assistants (Male) (MPHAs), the petitioners, who claim to be eligible to the said post, appeared in the written test. A merit list was prepared in March 2003. They were placed at Sl.Nos.108 and 109 on the basis of the marks they obtained. The Selection Committee appointed 80 candidates out of the merit list but the petitioners could not be selected, as they did not come up with the merit. Subsequently, in view of pendency of cases before the Supreme Court others were not appointed. On 07.08.2006, the Apex Court passed orders permitting the Government to fill up existing vacancies of MPHAs. The Government then issued G.O.Rt.No.1234 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (J2) Department dated 15.09.2006 and a memo dated 29.09.2006 containing guidelines to fill up the vacancies. A merit list was prepared by the first respondent. Petitioners were statedly placed at Sl.Nos.15 and 16. They were asked to appear for counselling on 11.12.2006. They did so but their names were not included in the selection list dated 02.12.2006. The petitioners therefore filed O.A.No.7561 of 2006, inter alia, praying the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereafter, the Tribunal), for a direction to the respondents to appoint them as MPHAs in Kadapa District. The petitioners contended that though there were 80 posts, only 60 were selected ignoring Rule 22 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules; and that names of the respondents 5 and 6 were not called for counselling because they were non-local candidates were involved in the selection list. It appears initially respondents 5 and 6 were not included in the list on the ground that they were non-local candidates. Subsequently, they produced certificates showing that they are local candidates. In the merit list, they were placed above the petitioners who were placed at Sl.Nos.15 and 16 below the contesting respondents. Taking this into consideration, the learned Tribunal did not find any reason to entertain the O.A., which was dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondents 5 and 6 are non-local candidates, therefore their inclusion in selection list and their appointment as MPHAs in Kadapa District is contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975; initially they were declared as non-local candidates in the common merit list; and therefore, their status cannot be changed based on the subsequent certificates produced by the contesting respondents. This Court heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader for Services. There is no dispute that respondents 5 and 6 also appeared in the selection test held in March 2003. It is the case of respondents 5 and 6 that the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) conducted enquiry with regard to the Study Certificate and found them to be local candidates. Therefore, they were included in the merit list as they got more marks than the petitioners. This aspect of the matter was not specifically denied by the petitioners. The petitioners have not placed before us any rule or notification requiring a candidate to produce the local area certificate at the beginning itself or a rule or notification which prohibits a selected candidate from producing the certificate at the stage of selection. In this case, they indeed produced study certificate. Doubting the same it was referred to MRO, who, after verification, issued a certificate. Therefore, having found that respondents 5 and 6 secured more marks than the petitioners, they were selected. The Tribunal having regard to this aspect recorded finding that respondents 5 to 6 are local candidates; that they got more marks than the petitioners; and that the petitioners cannot have any right to question the same till they are appointed. The reasoning of the learned Tribunal is unexceptionable and warrants no interference. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 28th September 2011 RRB