IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE fo L PRESENT fS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 16800 OF 2014 Coc 10 Between: D/'^ Kameswar Rao, Aged 31 years, Unemployee R/o Nellapalh (V), Tallrevu Mandal, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Rashtriya Madhymika Shiksha Abhayan, Rep by its Director of School Education, Department of School Education, AP, D No 398/3 Vidya phavan. Venkatadri Towers, Atmakur(V) Mangalagiri (M) Guntur District, Pm 522503. 2. The Goyernrnent of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary General Administration Department Secretariat Buildings, Velaqapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District. y=>puui, ...Respondents Cause Title in respect of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 amended/substit uted per Court Order dated 23.01.2025 vide I.A.No.1 of 2025 in WP No.16800 of 2014. as Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, in declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not disposing the representations dated 5-6-13 and 21-10-13 as illegal, arbitrary and to consider the as the Local unjust and consequentially direct the respondents Petitioner for appointment to the post of PGT (Chemistry) Candidate of East Godavari District by disposing her representations dated. 5-6-13 and 21-10-13 by fixing a time limit. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014rWPMP. NO: 20864 OF 2014) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be f^aspd to direct the 1®* respondent to dispose the representations dated: .'5X2013 and 21-10-2013. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K R SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent N0.I: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following order: APHC010283282014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 16800/2014 Between: ...PETITIONER K.n. Varalaxmi, AND The Rashtriya Madhymika Shiksha Abhayan and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KRSRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION 2.GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Court, vide interim order dated 30.01.2025 stating that: Learned counsel for the petitioner is challenging the inaction on part of the respondents in disposing of the representations of the petitioner dated 05.06.2013 and 21.10.2013 and seeks a consequential direction to consider the petitioner for the post of PGT (Chemistry) as a local candidate for East Godavari District It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to Nelapalli Village, Tallarevu Mandat East Godavari District The petitioner studied from class 1 to 5 at Nelapalli Village and further studied from class 6 to 10 at Yanam which is 0.5 Kilometers from the village of the petitioner. The petitioner completed M.Sc (Chemistry) and B.Ed in Physical Sciences. The respondents issued a notification on 06.02.2012 calling for the application for recruitment to the posts for PGT (Chemistry). The application of the petitioner lA/as rejected on the ground that the petitioner studied class 6 to 10 in Union Territory not in the state of Andhra Pradesh. On this ground the application of the petitioner was considered under Non-local category. The petitioner applied for the post of Forest Range Officer in the year 2013 which i/vas considered as Non local candidate, aggrieved by the action of the APPSC in categorizing the petitioner as non-local candidate, the petitioner filed O.A.No.4545 of 2013. accepted the candidature of the petitioner as a local candidate though she studied at Yanam. However, the petitioner could not be selected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court while admitting the Writ Petition, directed the respondents to dispose of the representations dated 05.06.2013 and 21.10.2013. As the respondents failed to comply with interim direction given by this Court, the petitioner filed the C.C.No.765 of 2015, which is ’also pending for consideration. The APPSC 3 3. Learned Government Pleader for School Education submits that the representation of the petitioner ivas considered and rejected vide proceedings dated 12.05.2015 and that the said proceedings were not under challenge in the present Writ Petition. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner admittedly studied at her village up to class 5 and in Yanam up to class 10. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader as per the presidential order, the petitioner have to be considered as non-local candidate and that she could not get selected on merit under the non-local candidate category. Further studies of the petitioner like graduation, post graduation and B.Ed. at Nagarjuna University, Rajamundry was not considered for determining the petitioner as a local candidate. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the certificate issued by the Tahsildar cannot be considered for determining the local status of the petitioner as the presidential order is categorically clear. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner also made a representation under Right to Information Act seeking information regarding the appointment to the post PGT (Chemistry). Pursuant to the notification, the reply of the Director of School Education is placed on record wherein it is stated that the proposal to engage the petitioner in the service on contract basis has been sent to the respondent and further action is awaited. A careful perusal of paragraph 6.8 of the presidential order reveals the following: “... Where necessary either of the criteria could also be adopted ensuring however that a candidate is not regarded as belonging to more than one local area. To obviate hardship, suitable exemptions will require to be formulated. The minimum period of residence study in a local institution should be reasonable, neither being illusory nor excessive. In the course or our deliberations we found that it should not be difficult to specify such reasonable, minimum after explaining to the people of the State the different aspects of the problem..." 5. The respondents ought to have considered the petitioner as local candidate when the petitioner was admittedly the resident of Nelapalli Village, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District and as the village did not have better education facility at that point of time, petitioner had to study from class 6 to 10 at which is hardly 500 meters away from the residence i.e., Yanam. The respondents have erred in rejecting the case of the petitioner by not considering her as a local candidate of Zone-ll, East Godavari District for the sole reason that she studied class 6 to 10 at Yanam. A careful reading of the presidential order would indicate that the entire Paragraph No. 6.8 is to be read in totality not in isolation. It is specifically mentioned in the said paragraph where necessary either of the criteria could also be adopted for determining the local status of the candidate. It is also made clear in the said paragraph that the candidate ought to be regarded as belonging to more than one local area. The respondent have erred in entertaining the presidential order in its latent spirit and have simply gone by their own presumption and understanding of the said paragraph and passed erroneous order. The petitioner would have to be essentially considered as a candidate belonging to East Godavari District for all purposes. 3. The learned Government Pleader has submitted the written instructions received from the Director of School Education, whereby the respondents have informed that the Government has accorded permission to appoint the petitioner as PGT Chemistry in Zone-ll, East Godavari District basis with the minimum time scale, as a special case. 4. Evidently, the respondents have grossly misread the Presidential Order of 1975. The respondents ought to have clearly followed the Presidential the a place on a contract 5 <% Order and considered the petitioner as a local candidate of Zone-ll. When the Administrative Tribunal held that the petitioner belonged to Zone-ll as a local candidate, the respondents’ cannot contend that the petitioner was considered as a local candidate for Zone-ll in the examinations conducted by the APPSC and that the petitioner cannot be considered as a local candidate in the examination conducted by DSE in 2012. When the candidate was considered belonging to Zone-ll and a finding on that aspect is issued by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The said order has attained finality, as the as State has not challenged the same. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment passed in W.P.No.28378 of 1995, whereby an identical issue fell for consideration before this Court, and this Court has held that the petitioner ought to be treated as a local candidate. The said judgment has attained finality. The respondents ought to have considered the same held and applied the same analogy to the petitioner as well. It is needless to state that the petitioner belongs to Zone-ll in terms of the Presidential Order at Para No.7 (ii). The said Para No.7 (ii) of the Presidential Order is very clear, and the same ought to have been applied to the petitioner to determine her local status. 6. Considering the submission of the learned Government Pleader that though the recruitment in pursuance of the DSE-2012 is complete and that there are no further vacancies for accommodating the petitioner, however, the of the petitioner would be considered as a special case, and the case ' ^ respondents have accepted to accommodate the by extending the minimum time scale. 7. Accordingiy, this Writ Petition i respondents to issue petitioner on a contract basis IS disposed off with a direction to the necessary orders of appointment to the petitioner on a contract basis by extending the minimum time scale within (08) weeks from the date of receipt of this case of the petitioner shall be a period of eight order. It is also made clear that the considered for regularization as and when vacancies arise. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. Sd/-B.PRASADA RAO assistant REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /?■ &- To, District, Pin 522503 ’ Mangalagiri (M) Guntur Amaravathi, Guntur District. 3. One CC to Sri K R Srinivas, Jrad?sh'[OU-^ Administration 5- *° GP for Schooi 6. Two CD Copies Department, Buildings, Velagpudi, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. RAM HIGH COURT DATED:06/02/2025 SfoF X 19 MAR 2025 ORDER ft^ . Current secuon ^ WP.No.16800of2014 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS