THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.802 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner to the post of Shramik though the petitioner scored well in the interview on the ground that the petitioner was not a local of Nizamabad District as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Shramik on par with others. 2. The petitioner was born at Nizamabad District and he completed his studies from 1st class to 10th class at Jagityal, Karimnagar and passed 10th class in March, 1991. He passed I.T.I. in the trade of Diesel Mechanic from the Indur Industrial Institute, Nizamabad in the month of July, 1992. He underwent apprenticeship training in APSRTC, Metpally, Karimnagar District from 07-12-1994 to 06-12-1996. In pursuance of notification issued by the Corporation for filling up posts of Shramik in Nizamabad region, he applied for the same and attended interview on 08-01-2011 and scored 82 marks. Though he is supposed to be declared as selected as the person who got less marks than him was selected, his name was not found in the list. On enquiry, he came to know that though he was selected, but on the ground that he is not a local of Nizamabad district as he completed his education in Karimnagar district, his name was rounded off. He made representation to the 2nd respondent on 10-01-2011 stating that he applied for the post of Shramik in Karimnagar, but he was not called for interview. When he made enquiry, he was informed that since he was born in Nizamabad District, he was not given call letters on the ground that he was non local to Karimnagar district. He is entitled to be considered in 20% quota as per the notification. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the petition. It s stated that in pursuance of the notification issued by the corporation, the petitioner applied for the post of Shramik enclosing the certificates required except Study Certificate from 1st class to 10th class. Though the petitioner secured 82 marks, his application was not considered by the selection committee as he is native of Karimnagar District and treated him as non local. There is clear cut instructions from Head Officer vide circular, dated 21-10-2010 to follow presidential order in direct recruitment in favour of local candidate and open category is 80:20. The first 20% of the posts have to be filled up from combined merit list of both local and open category (both local and non local) candidates based on the overall merit and communal roster. The remaining 80% of the posts have to be filled up only by local candidates based on their merit and communal roster point. The certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Nizamabad shows that the petitioner and his family members reside at Nizamabad but not mentioned as born in Nizamabad District. Basing on the instructions contained in circular No.67, dated 15-12-2010, the selection committee treated the petitioner as non-local. The selection committee acted in accordance with the circular instructions and Regulation of the Corporation. Hence, they pray to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as per notification, the petitioner produced nativity certificate, which shows that he is a native of Nizamabad District and therefore, his case has to be considered as local and that adoption of presidential order by the Corporation is illegal in view of the decision of this Court reported in CH RAJI REDDY AND OTHERS V APSRTC REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, BHAGYANAGAR REGION AND ANOTHER [1], that in view of the production of certificate issued by the competent authority, the case of the petitioner has to be treated as local, that though he secured more marks than the selected candidates, but his case was not considered as local and hence, he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner is a native of Karimnagar District, where he studied 1st to 10 class, that the petitioner has not produced any residential certificate showing that he was residing in Nizamabad District prior to the date of notification, that the case of the petitioner has been considered as non local, that the petitioner has not secured more marks than the selected candidates in the case of non-local and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. It is not in dispute before this Court that the notification was issued for filling up the posts of Shramik on 01-11-2010 which prescribe certain norms for the purpose of eligibility criteria. It is also not in dispute that petitioner applied for the post and secured 82 marks in the interview. It is also not in dispute that marks secured by the petitioner is more than the marks secured by the candidates appointed n the group of BC ‘D’ and their cases have been considered as local. A specific plea has been taken by the corporation that by virtue of circular No.67, dated 15-12-2010 adopting the presidential order, the selection committee treated the petitioner as non-local. One of the norms prescribed for the posts is that candidates residence certificate issued by the concerned Revenue Official or study certificate from 4th to 10th class in the District. This condition is laid down in terms of A.P. Public Employment (Organization of local cadres and Regulation of District Recruitment) Order, 1975. It is not in dispute that the said order has been adopted by the respondents as per circular No.67, dated 15-12-2010. Para 7 of the said order reads as follows: 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 (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” For the purpose of present facts of he case, one of the two requirements is necessary for the purpose of claiming the benefit of local candidate. (i) A candidate must have studied in an education institution in such local area for a period of not less than four consecutive academic years of qualifying examination (ii) Where candidate resided in a local area for a maximum period out of the seven years. The word ‘relevant qualifying examination’ defined in explanation to para 7 of the order reads as follows: (A) the examination 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. The case of the petitioner does not fall or fit into any one of the two conditions. In such a case, he has to be treated as non- local. Petitioner has not produced the study certificate showing his study of four academic years preceding matriculation in Nizamabad District. Similarly he has not produced a certificate proving his residence in Nizamabad District to show that he resided the maximum period out of seven years. If the presidential order is applied for claiming a local candidate, one must study four years preceding the qualifying examination for the post. If he has not studied the same, he must produce residence certificate showing that he has been residing there for a majority period out of seven years prior to the date of notification. But that aspect of the case has not been dealt with in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in Raji Reddy’s case (1 supra), wherein it was held thus: “In the light of the law declared supra, it is clear that neither the 1st respondent-Corporation nor the State of Andhra Pradesh have competence to prescribe a qualification of ‘residence’ in a part of the State as condition precedent for appointment to a public office in the State. In the circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to compete for the post of Conductors, Drivers and Shramiks (cleaners) notified for any region in any part of the State by the APSRTC. Consequent on the position, if they have applied, their applications shall be considered, on merits, and the respondent-Corporation shall not decline consideration of their applications on the ground that they are not locals of the region or district, in which, the vacancies notified for recruitment, arise.” 7. No doubt, the above decision would go to show that in case of public employment, the authorities cannot prescribe a qualification of ‘residence’ in a part of the State as a condition precedent. If the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is adopted, the question of locals and non-locals does not arise. The comparative merit of each candidate has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of making the selection. But, however, the petitioner has not challenged the selection process. The process of selection begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the preparation of the selection list for appointment. The process consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny or applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or vivavoce and preparation of the successful candidates for appointment. As per notification, he must either produce actual residential certificate or certificate of minimum educational qualifications preceding four years to the date of notification. Having participated in the process of selection, now he cannot turn round and say that putting the place of residence as one of the requirements in the notification is incorrect. If he is aggrieved for the said condition, he must have challenged the notification. So long as notification is not challenged, the petitioner is estopped from contending that the presidential order has no application to the present facts of the case. Therefore, the above decision has no application in view of the fact that the notification has not been under challenge. 8. Coming to the certificate produced by the petitioner, admittedly he produced certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizamabad, dated 06-07-1998 and another certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Nizamabad. The certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Nizamabad, dated 21-06-2010 would disclose that the petitioner and his family members resided in the village Nizamabad. Similarly, the certificate dated 06-07-1998 would go to show that the petitioner is a native of Nizamabad town. Even according to the case of the petitioner, these two certificates do not disclose that the petitioner was residing for a period of four years or a majority period out of seven years preceding the date of notification. Therefore, when he has not shown to be actually residing in Nizamabad so as to avail the benefit of local candidate prior to the date of notification, he cannot be treated as local and that is the reason why the case of the petitioner was not considered for the post of Shramik in the category of locals. His case is considered in the category of non- locals but he has not come up within the zone of consideration. Therefore, the recruitment is in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the notification and it is not shown that though the petitioner has secured more marks than the other non- local candidates, he was not called for interview. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 13-06-2011 Hsd [1] 2003 (4) ALT 36