Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1018 (AP)

Chanda Narender v. Registrar, Osmania University

2012-10-15

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2012
Judgment The short issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the petitioner is a “local candidate” within the meaning of Clause I(B) of Annexure-I to the Rules of Admission in accordance with the A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission) Order, 1974 (for short “the Order”). I have heard Sri M.V. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. G. Jaya Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Osmania University representing the respondents. The petitioner appeared in the entrance test conducted by respondent No.2 for admission into the Master of Physical Education (M.P. Ed.). The petitioner averred that he obtained 15th rank with total aggregate of 67 marks and was called for the counselling held at the Nizam College on 4-8-2012. He further averred that the respondents have allotted 28 seats to the local candidates and the last candidate admitted in the M.P. Ed. course in the open category (Local Quota) was the one with 17th rank. Though the petitioner got 15th rank, he was not given admission as he was treated as a non-local candidate. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that even though he has studied Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P. Ed.) course, which is the qualifying course for the M.P. Ed. course during the academic year 2011-12 in the Amaravathi University in Maharashtra, prior to commencement of the said course he has lived for more than seven consecutive years by pursuing his education in Nalgonda, which falls within the “local area” of the respondents-University. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is averred that as the petitioner obtained the qualifying degree from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh during the academic year 2011-12, he has not studied four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he first appeared in the qualifying Degree examinations in the State of Andhra Pradesh and hence he is not a “local candidate”. Clause I(B) of Annexure-I of the Order defined “local candidate” as under: A candidate for admission to any course of study shall be regarded as a Local Candidate in relation to local are: (i) if he/she 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 in 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/she has not studied in any educational institution, if he/she has resided in that local area for a period of not less than four years immediately preceding the date of commencement of the relevant qualifying examination in which he/she appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared. The above reproduced Clause contains two parts. The first part in sub-clause (i) clarifies a candidate as a “local candidate” if he/she 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 in the relevant qualifying examination. In the second part, under sub-clause (ii), it is provided that if a candidate has not studied for four consecutive academic years as in sub-clause (i), he will still be treated as a “local candidate” if he has resided in the “local area” for a period of not less than four years immediately preceding the date of commencement of the relevant qualifying examination in which he appeared, or as the case may be, first appeared. As noted above, it is the specifically pleaded case of the petitioner that before he joined the B.P. Ed. course, which is the qualifying course for admission into the M.P. Ed. course, the petitioner studied for more than seven years in the “local area”. As noted above, it is the specifically pleaded case of the petitioner that before he joined the B.P. Ed. course, which is the qualifying course for admission into the M.P. Ed. course, the petitioner studied for more than seven years in the “local area”. In support of his plea, the petitioner has produced before the Court a copy of the local area/candidate certificate dated 21-8-2012 issued by the Tahsildar, Thungathurthi Mandal, Nalgonda District, wherein it is certified that the former has studied from 1996 to 2011 from Classes III to Degree in Thungathurthi, Nalgonda District, which undisputedly falls within the “local area” of the respondents-University. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have completely failed to refer to sub-clause (ii) of Clause I(B) of Annexure-1 to the Order. For a candidate to be qualified for being a “local candidate” it is enough if he satisfies either of the two requirements under the above quoted two sub-clauses. Since the petitioner satisfies the requirements of sub-clause (ii), the respondents have committed a patent illegality in not considering him as a “local candidate”. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner as a “local candidate” subject to his filing before them the original local area/local candidate certificate dated 21-8-2012. Upon filing the said certificate, the respondents shall treat the petitioner as a “local candidate” and give him admission in the M.P. Ed. course, subject to the availability of vacancy. As a sequel, WPMP No.32370 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous.