JUDGMENT : 1. Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada called for applications for admission into Super Speciality Courses (DM and M.Ch.) for the academic year 2011-12. The petitioner applied for DM (Gastroenterology). He was not given admission, though he secured 14th rank in the entrance test, on the ground that he was not a local candidate as he studied MBBS and MD (General Medicine) in Karnataka State and the 3rd respondent, who secured lesser rank i.e., 16th rank, was given admission to Super Speciality Course of DM (Gastroenterology). He has, therefore, filed this Writ Petition to declare him as a “local candidate” as per the rank obtained by him in the entrance examination in terms of Para No.4 (1)(b) of “A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974” (Presidential Order) r/w Para No.3.4.1(b) of prospectus issued by Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada. 2. Heard Sri M.Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned standing counsel for the 1st Respondent-University and Sri Manik Rao, learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent. 3. Contentions of petitioner: 1. The petitioner should be treated as a local candidate of Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam, within Andhra University local area by virtue of his residence. 2. A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974 popularly known as “Presidential Order” has not provided for reservation of seats in super specialty courses in medicine. Hence, reservation of seats is invalid. 3. Reservation of seats in super specialty courses in medicine violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Contentions on behalf of University: 1. The petitioner cannot be treated as a local candidate in terms of the Presidential Order, because he has not resided during the prescribed period within the local area. 2. Presidential Order promulgated by President of India under Article 371D of the constitution is comprehensive and applies to all admissions including super specialty courses in medicine. 3. Reservation of seats to local candidates is constitutionally protected by virtue of Article 371D and Article 14 would yield to such protection. 5. Contesting Respondent No.3 contentions. Additional Points. 1) Sole Relief claimed in the writ petition viz., to declare the petitioner as a local candidate; which the petitioner has not amended; hence relief based on the non-application of Presidential Order cannot be granted. 5. Contesting Respondent No.3 contentions. Additional Points. 1) Sole Relief claimed in the writ petition viz., to declare the petitioner as a local candidate; which the petitioner has not amended; hence relief based on the non-application of Presidential Order cannot be granted. 2) Arguments regarding non-applicability of presidential order cannot be taken into consideration, since the same is inconsistent with his stand as being a local candidate. 3) In any event, petitioner would not get a seat because there were other candidates who had secured higher ranks. 6. Point No.1 :- Whether the petitioner can be regarded as a local candidate on the basis of his claim as a resident. 7. The petitioner claims to be a local candidate on the premise that he was born and brought up at Prathipadu, Guntur District and completed his higher studies in Vizianagaram District which are within the local area of Andhra University, Visakhapatnam. He places reliance on Voters Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India, Residence Certificate, dated 02-07-2011 issued by the Tahsildar, Prathipadu Mandal, certifying that he was resident of the said village 4/7 years immediately preceding the commencement of the qualifying examination and the Domicile Certificate, dated 10-05-1997 given by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Prathipadu. Reliance is also placed on his Education Certificates and a Certificate, dated 10-05-1997 of the Mandal Revenue Officer certifying that the father of the petitioner possesses land property at the said village. Thus, it is his contention that though he is a local candidate, the 1st Respondent-University failed to consider the same and improperly rejected his claim. 8. The claim of the petitioner is not based on his being actual or physically resident of the local area, because admittedly he was residing and studying outside the local area during the relevant time. His claim is based on symbolic/constructive residence on the basis of possessing immovable property and being a voter. 9. Before considering the aforesaid contentions, it is necessary to traverse the background of the Presidential Order. 10. Erstwhile State of Hyderabad comprised three areas – Telangana, Maratwada and Karnataka. “Mulki Rules” were promulgated by the Nizam which required 15 years residence qualification in the State as an essential qualification for public employment. In 1955 Hyderabad General Recruitment Rules, 1955 were framed under proviso to Article 309 by the Raj Pramukh superseding the previous Rules. 10. Erstwhile State of Hyderabad comprised three areas – Telangana, Maratwada and Karnataka. “Mulki Rules” were promulgated by the Nizam which required 15 years residence qualification in the State as an essential qualification for public employment. In 1955 Hyderabad General Recruitment Rules, 1955 were framed under proviso to Article 309 by the Raj Pramukh superseding the previous Rules. Under the Rules the Domicile Certificate was necessary for appointment to State or subordinate services. On 01-11-1956, the State of Hyderabad was trifurcated. Telangana region became part of the newly formed State of Andhra Pradesh and the Maratwada and Karnataka regions became parts of Maharastra and Mysore States, respectively. 11. The State of Andhra Pradesh came into existence on 01-11-1956. Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957 was enacted enabling the Central Government to make Rules in respect of certain classes of public employment in certain areas. In exercise of Section 3, the Central Government framed A.P. Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules, 1959. Under the said Rules residence requirement for a period of not less than 15 years within the Telangana region was made the eligibility criteria for certain classes of public employment. The Supreme Court in A.V.S.N.Rao v. State of A.P. (1969) 1 SCC 839 declared the aforesaid provisions as ultra vires on the ground that residence requirement within a State was beyond the Parliament’s power in view of the provisions under Article 16 (3) of the Constitution. 12. Agitations and separatist claims emerged on grounds of economic disparities, unequal employment and educational opportunities to the people between the different regions in the State. A political solution, which was popularly known as “Six Point Formula”, was evolved which found the acceptance by the State Government to provide necessary constitutional authority for giving effect to the provisions and solutions identified in the “Six Point Formula”. Thus, Article 371D came to be incorporated into the constitution in its 32nd amendment. 13. The object for enacting Article 371D was, to promote accelerated development of the backward areas and to ensure balanced development of the State as a whole, to provide equitable opportunities to different areas in the matter of education, employment in public services. The President is empowered, by order, to provide for equitable opportunities and facilities for people belonging to different parts of the State in matters of public employment and education. The President is empowered, by order, to provide for equitable opportunities and facilities for people belonging to different parts of the State in matters of public employment and education. Under Clause 2 (b), the Presidential Order may specify any part or parts of the State which shall be regarded as the local area – (1) xxx xxx xxx (ii) xxx xxx xxx (iii) for the purposes of admission to any University within the State or to any other educational institution which is subject to the control of the State Government. Under Clause 2 (c), the Presidential Order may specify the extent to which, the manner in which and the conditions subject to which, preference or reservation shall be given or made – (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) in the matter of admission to any such University or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (b) as may be specified in this behalf in the order, 14. In accordance with Article 371D, Presidential order, dated 1st July, 1974 was promulgated. (published in A.P.Gazette Extraordinary, dated 03-07-1974 vide G.O.Ms.No.453, General Administration (SPF.b) Department, dated 03-07-1974). 15. The Presidential Order demarcated “Local Areas”. Districts viz., Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, West Godavari, East Godavari, Krishna, Guntur and Prakasam Districts are regarded as local areas for the purposes of admission to Andhra University, Nagarjuna University and other educational institutions (other than a State-wide University or State-wide educational institution), which are subject to the control of the State Government and are situated in that part. Likewise, Adilabad, Hyderabad, Karimnagar, Khammam, Mahabubnagar, Medak, Nalgonda, Nizamabad and Warangal Districts are regarded as a local areas for the purpose of admission to Osmania and Kakatiya Universities. Districts viz., Anantapur, Kadapa, Kurnool, Chittoor and Nellore are regarded as local areas as regards Sri Venkateswara University and other educational institutions, which are subject to the control of the State Government. 16. Paras 5 and 6 of the Presidential Order deal with reservations. It is provided that admissions to 85% of the available seats in every course of study shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates, which is as under: 5. 16. Paras 5 and 6 of the Presidential Order deal with reservations. It is provided that admissions to 85% of the available seats in every course of study shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates, which is as under: 5. Reservation in non-state-wide Universities and educational Institutions – (1) Admissions to eighty – five percent of the available seats in every course of study provided by the (Andhra University, the Nagarjuna University, the Osmania University, ** the Kakatiya University or Sri Venkateswara University) or by any other educational institution (other than a state-wide University or a State-Wide educational institutions) which is subject to the control of the State Government shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area in respect of such University or other educational institution. (2) While determining under sub-paragraph (1) the number of seats to be’ reserved in favour of local candidates any fraction of a seat shall be counted as one: Provided that there shall be at least one unreserved seat. 6. Reservation in State-wide Universities and State-wide Educational Institutions – (1) Admissions to eighty five per cent of the available seats in every course of study provided by a State-wide University or a State-wide educational institution shall be reserved in favour of and allocated among the, local candidates in relation, to the *(local areas specified in sub-paragraph (1) sub-paragraph (2) and sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 3, in the ratio of 42 : 36 : 22 respectively). (2) While determining under sub-paragraph (1) the number of seats to be reserved in favour of the local candidates, any fraction of a seat shall be counted as one. Provided that there shall be at least one unreserved seat. (1) While allocating under sub-paragraph (1) the reserved seats among the local candidates in relation to the different local areas, fractions of a seat shall be adjusted by counting the greatest fraction as one and, if necessary, also the greater of the remaining fractions as another, and, where the fraction to be so counted cannot be selected by reason of the fractions being equal, the selection shall be by lot; Provided that there shall be at least one seat allocated for the local candidates in respect of each local area. Thus, the Presidential Order has delineated Local Areas and has provided for reservation of 85% seats in favour of Local Candidates. 17. Thus, the Presidential Order has delineated Local Areas and has provided for reservation of 85% seats in favour of Local Candidates. 17. As regards “Local Candidate”, the Presidential Order has prescribed how a person shall be regarded as a local candidate. Paras 4 (1)(a) and (2)(a) postulate a “local candidate” depending upon the length of his study in the local area, which are as under: 4. Local candidate: (1) A candidate for admission to any course of study shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to a local area. (a) 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 in the relevant qualifying examination; (2) (a)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 a local candidate in relation to. (i) Such local area where he has studied for the maximum period out of the said period of seven years; or Similarly, Para 4 (1)(b) and 4 (2)(b) postulate a local candidate depending on the residential status, which are as under: 4. Local candidate: (1) A candidate for admission to any course of study shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to a local area. Local candidate: (1) A candidate for admission to any course of study shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to a local area. (a) x x x x (b) 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 relevant qualifying examination in which he appeared or as the case may be first appeared, (2) (a) x x x x (b) 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 appear for the examination, he has not studied in the educational institution 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 – i) Such local area where he has resided for the maximum period out of the said period of seven years, or ii) Where the period of his residence in two or more local areas are equal, such local area where he has resided last in such equal periods,] Explanation for the purpose of this paragraph i) “Educational institution means a University or any 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 admission to any course of study, means the examination, a pass in which is the minimum educational qualification for admission to such course of study; [(iii) In reckoning the consecutive academic years during which a candidate has studied, - a) any period of interruption of his study by reason of his failure to pass any examination; and b) any period of his study in state – wide University or a state-wide educational institution, shall be disregarded] (iv) the question whether any candidate for admission to any course of study 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 parent or other guardian,] 18. ‘Residence’ may have different connotations for different purposes. The word ‘reside’ is defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary as follows: “Reside: live, dwell, abide, sojourn, stay, remain, lodge. (Western – Knapp Engineering Co. v. Gillbank, C.C.A. Cal., 129 F2d 135, 136.) To settle oneself or a thing in a place, to be stationed, to remain or stay, to dwell permanently or continuously, to have a settled abode for a time, to have one’s residence or domicile; specifically, to be in residence, to have an abiding place, to be present as an element, to inhere as quality, to be vested as a right. (State ex rel. Bowden v. Jensen Mo., 359 S.W.2d 343, 349.)” In Websters dictionary also the word ‘reside’ finds a similar meaning, which may be gainfully extracted: “1. To dwell for a considerable time; to make one’s home; live. 2. To exist as an attribute or quality within. 3. To be vested: within” .19. In Mst. Jagir Kaur and another v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1963 SC 1521 , while dealing with a case under Section 488 Cr.PC and the question of jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a petition for maintenance, the Apex Court noticed a near unanimity of opinion as to what is meant by the use of the word “resides” appearing in the provision and held that “resides” implied something more than a flying visit to, or casual stay at a particular place. The legal position was summed up in the following words: .“…… Having regard to the object sought to be achieved, the meaning implicit in the words used, and the construction placed by decided cases there on, we would define the word “resides” thus: a person resides in a place if he through choice makes it his abode permanently or even temporarily; whether a person has chosen to make a particular place his abode depends upon the facts of each case……” 20. In RUCHI MAJOO V. SANJEEV MAJOO 2011 (5) ALD 19 (SC), the Apex Court, after considering the case laws in Mrs. In RUCHI MAJOO V. SANJEEV MAJOO 2011 (5) ALD 19 (SC), the Apex Court, after considering the case laws in Mrs. Annie Besant v. Narayaniah – AIR 1914 PC 41; Kuldip Nayar and others v. Union of India and others – (2006) 7 SCC 1 and a host of other judgments, while dealing with the expressions ‘ordinary resident’ and ‘ordinarily resides’, endorsed the view that the question whether one is ordinarily residing at a given place depends so much on the intention to make that place ones ordinary abode. 21. In Kuldip Nayar’s case, it was stated that residence is a concept that may also be transitory. Even when qualified by the word ‘ordinarily’, the word ‘resident’ would not result in a construction having the effect of a requirement of the person using a particular place for dwelling always or on permanent uninterrupted basis. Thus understood, even the requirement of a person being ‘ordinarily resident’ at a particular place is incapable of ensuring nexus between him and the place in question. 22. Two things emerge from the aforesaid views expressed by the Apex Court; firstly, whether a person is a resident of a particular place depends upon the facts of each case; and secondly, the concept of ‘residence’ is not static and it may be transitory and that it cannot be a casual stay. 23. In a given case, a person may be a resident of more than one place. He may have a place of abode or a dwelling unit at more than one place and may stay for more or less a considerable time in all those places in pursuit of his avocation. A person may possess or own houses/immovable properties at several places at any given point of time and, in a technical sense, one may treat all the places as his residence or abode. The expression ‘residence’, when used in the context of a Statute conferring benefit, may have to be construed in the context and the object sought to be achieved by such Statute. It cannot be understood in a generic sense and treat all such places as places of residence for all purposes. 24. ‘Residence’, for the purpose of this case, therefore, has to be interpreted in the perspective of the historical back-ground of Article 371D and the Presidential Order. 25. It cannot be understood in a generic sense and treat all such places as places of residence for all purposes. 24. ‘Residence’, for the purpose of this case, therefore, has to be interpreted in the perspective of the historical back-ground of Article 371D and the Presidential Order. 25. It is already noticed that the impetus for enacting Article 371D is to promote accelerated development of the backward areas of the State to secure the balanced development and to provide equitable opportunities to different areas of the State in matters of education and employment. Therefore, in a case of this nature, regard must be had to the purpose underlying the said provision and the word ‘reside’ must be construed as an expression intended to address the said issue and not as a mere literal expression and in a generic sense. 26. As noticed earlier, the claim of the petitioner, in the instant case, relates to his residential status as per para 4 (1)(b) extracted above. 27. A plain reading of Para 4 (1)(b) clearly reveals that a candidate, to be regarded as a local candidate, should have ‘resided’ for a minimum of 4 years immediately preceding the date of commencement of the relevant qualifying examination. The word ‘resided’ is employed in Para 4 (2) (b) also. 28. In my view, the language employed in the aforesaid paras cannot be given an interpretation to include symbolic or constructive residence. One has to actually reside in the Local Area without unreasonable breaks for being regarded as a Local Candidate. 29. This interpretation in my view avoids possible mischief. If owning/possessing immovable property or being a voter is treated as criteria to determine residence of a person, it is not difficult to acquire properties or becoming a voter at different places and deprive actual residents of the benefits under a Statute. 30. A deeper consideration of the Presidential Order makes this position clear. Explanation IV of paras 4(2)(b) has clearly postulated the question whether a candidate has resided in any local area shall be determined with reference to the place where the candidate actually resided and not with reference to the residence of his parent or other guardian. 31. One more aspect needs to be stated. Initially para 4(1)(b) alone was incorporated when the Presidential Order was enacted in the year 1974. 31. One more aspect needs to be stated. Initially para 4(1)(b) alone was incorporated when the Presidential Order was enacted in the year 1974. The said para had given rise to certain situations wherein some of the candidates belonging to the State of Andhra Pradesh, who had studied or resided within the State, were regarded as non-local candidates in all the local areas within the State. In order to avoid such situation, an amendment was made in the year 1976 inserting new sub-para (2) to para 4 making the provision for considering the claims of the persons who would have otherwise been eligible. The amendment is clearly intended to protect those who are actually residents of the State. Para 3.4.1 (b) of University prospectus is clearly in consonance with the Presidential Order. 32. In the light of the aforesaid discussion it is not possible to hold that the petitioner who had resided and studied elsewhere in the State of Karnataka as a local candidate in the A.P. State under the Presidential Order. 33. Point No.2: - Whether the Presidential Order has not provided for reservation of seats in Super Speciality Courses in Medicine and if so, reservations made in the instant case are invalid: 34. The contention of the petitioner is that Super Speciality Courses were introduced for the first time in various colleges and Universities in the State in 1983. The Presidential Order was promulgated in the year 1974 with a later amendment in the year 1976, which is long prior to the introduction of courses. It is therefore, contended that the Presidential Order has not envisaged nor has it specified the manner and method to make local area reservations of seats in Super Speciality Courses. The said contention is based on Clause (2) of Article 371D, which inter alia states that an order made under Clause (1) must specify the extent and the manner and the conditions subject to which preference or reservation will be given in the matter of admission into educational institutions. 35. The purport of the aforesaid contention is that an order has not been promulgated by the President in respect of Super Speciality Courses, therefore reservation of seats to local candidates is invalid. The said contention does not deserve acceptance. 35. The purport of the aforesaid contention is that an order has not been promulgated by the President in respect of Super Speciality Courses, therefore reservation of seats to local candidates is invalid. The said contention does not deserve acceptance. The Presidential Order in its perspective and scope is comprehensive enough to cover not only the courses as were available on the date of promulgation, but also apply to prospective courses that might be introduced in future. The courses that are immune from the Presidential Order are specifically stated in para-11, which are as follows: “Para-11 : Saving – Noting in this order shall apply to admission to any, a) Primary school or secondary school b) Correspondence courses provided by any university or other educational institution, or c) Part-time course of study provided by any university or other educational institution solely for the benefit of employed persons.” The specific exclusion of the named courses from the application of the Presidential Order is indicative of the intention that other courses whenever introduced come within the fold of the Presidential Order. 36. Further, para 5 deals with reservation in non state-wide universities and educational institutions. It states that admission to 85% of the available seats in “every course of study” provided in any of the specified universities or any educational institutions (other than a state-wide university or statewide educational institutions) that are subject to the control of State-wide, shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area in respect of such university or other educational institutions. Similarly, Para-6 has employed similar language in respect of reservations in State-wide universities and State-wide educational institutions in the specified ratio. 37. The phrase “every course of study” employed in the aforesaid paras was considered by a learned Full Bench of this Court in Md. Abdul Azeez Asad v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2005 (3) ALT 252 (F.B.) which held as follows: Para-60: “The expression 'every' connotes all individual courses of study without exception. The word 'study' too bears a precise connotation - the exertion for acquiring of knowledge. The meaning of this expression is further processed and refined in the Presidential Order. Explanation (i) in Paragraph-4 defines an 'educational institution' to mean an educational institution recognized by the State Government, a University or other competent authority. The word 'study' too bears a precise connotation - the exertion for acquiring of knowledge. The meaning of this expression is further processed and refined in the Presidential Order. Explanation (i) in Paragraph-4 defines an 'educational institution' to mean an educational institution recognized by the State Government, a University or other competent authority. Paragraph-3 which defines the expression 'local area' also clarifies that the provisions of the Presidential Order are applicable to educational institutions which are subject to the control of the State Government. Paragraph-11 excludes the operation of the Presidential Order to primary or secondary schools, correspondence courses, part-time courses of such private institution, University or other educational institutions, the latter for the benefit of employed persons and to courses of study at the Army Dental College, Secunderabad. In itself, the word 'course' means: (a) a series of lectures or lessons in a particular subject; (b) a route or direction to be followed; (c) The way in which something progresses or develops and (d) the procedure adopted to deal with the situation (Concise Oxford English dictionary). The word 'course' is thus pluri-signative. Consequently, the phrase 'course of study' must be assumed to be open textured and ambiguous. A word or phrase is said to be ambiguous, when it has more than one meaning or different shades of meaning.” 38. Thus the Presidential Order is comprehensive enough and has sufficiently envisaged local area reservations to courses as and when introduced from time to time and no fresh Presidential Order need be made under Article 371 D. 39. Further contention of the petitioner is that there can be no reservations in Super Speciality Courses because the courses are merit oriented requiring talent. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 664, Indira Sawhney and others v. Union of India and others (1992) 3 SCC 217 and Dr. Preethi Srivatsava v. State of MP and others (1999) 7 SCC 120 . Reliance is also placed on an unreported judgment of this Court in W.P.No.13224 of 2010 and batch dated 30.09.2010. 40. It is true that in the aforesaid judgments it is held that admissions to the highest available medical courses in the country at the super speciality levels must be given only on the basis of competitive merit, and in specialities and super specialities in medicine merit alone must prevail. 40. It is true that in the aforesaid judgments it is held that admissions to the highest available medical courses in the country at the super speciality levels must be given only on the basis of competitive merit, and in specialities and super specialities in medicine merit alone must prevail. 41. However, in Reita Nirankari v. University of Delhi AIR1984 SC 1569 the Apex Court held that the ratio decided in Pradeep Jain’s case (4 supra) All India Scheme for Selection of Medical Admissions framed pursuant thereto are not applicable to the States of Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir in view of the special constitutional provisions. 42. In so far as State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, the special provision under Article 371D of the Constitution, was upheld by the Apex Court in P. Sambamurthy and others v. State of A.P., AIR 1987 SC 663 excepting Clause (5). 43. Point No.3: Whether reservation of seats in Super Speciality Courses in Medicine violates Article 14 of the Constitution: Clause (10) of Article 371D requires to be noticed for answering the contention. The said clause is as follows: “The provisions of this article and of any order made by the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything, in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force.” 44. Though Article 14 guarantees equality of opportunity and the equal protection of laws, in so far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, adherence to equality under Article 14 is excluded by virtue of Article 371D (10). 45. A similar contention was repelled by a learned Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Fazal Ghafoor v. The Principal, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad and others 1988 (2) ALT 227, which is as follows: “It is next contended by Mr. Sarathy that the reservation in favour of the local candidates violates Article 14 of the Constitution. This argument need not detain us in as much as the Presidential Order has been issued under Article 371-D of the Constitution of India which is a special provision contained in the Constitution applicable only to the state of Andhra Pradesh. Sarathy that the reservation in favour of the local candidates violates Article 14 of the Constitution. This argument need not detain us in as much as the Presidential Order has been issued under Article 371-D of the Constitution of India which is a special provision contained in the Constitution applicable only to the state of Andhra Pradesh. The provisions of Article 371-D prevail and override Article 14 as well, as is clear from Clause 10, thereof, which says that the provisions of this article and of any order made by the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force”. Faced with this clause, Mr. Sarathi sought to argue that Article 371-D of the Constitution is itself unconstitutional in as much as it violates the basic structure of the Constitution. We do not think that we can permit this argument to be raised at this stage. This contention was not raised in this writ petition and it requires examination at much greater depth. In any event, we may point out that the constitutional validity of this Article has been upheld by the Supreme Court in P. Sambamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1987 SC 663 ).” 46. The said judgment also upheld by the Apex Court in Dr. Fazal Ghafoor v. Principal, Osmania Medical College AIR 1988 SC 2288 . Thus the contention based on violation of Article 14 does not deserve acceptance. 47. Additional Contentions of Respondent No.3: The contention of the 3rd respondent that relief based on non-application of Presidential Order cannot be granted as it has not been prayed for and that the contention as to the applicability of the Presidential Order being inconsistent with the stand taken by the petitioner as a local candidate, do not deserve acceptance since the said objections are too technical. It is well settled that relief can always be moulded if appropriate pleadings are available on record. It may however correct that even if this Court had accepted the contention of the petitioner that Presidential Order has not provided for local area reservations, the petitioner would not have been given admission as there were others, who had secured higher ranks. 48. In the analysis as above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 49. 48. In the analysis as above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 49. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.27022 of 2011 and W.P.M.P.No.34786 of 2011 are dismissed as unnecessary.