Judgment : G. Rohini, J. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No.5628 of 2011 is the appellant herein. The said writ petition was filed questioning the selection and appointment of the 2nd respondent herein as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist in the 1st respondent University against the one post allotted for BC-E (women) category in Southern Telangana Zone, primarily on the ground that the 2nd respondent being a non-local candidate was not eligible for consideration against the said post. The contention advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner that as per Para-7 of A.P. Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Presidential Order’), the respondent No.2 is a non-local candidate in relation to the local area covered by Southern Telangana Zone (Zone-VII) was not accepted by the learned Single Judge and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed. We have heard Sri S. Satyam Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, Sri P. Durga Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent University as well as Sri Mohd. Adnan, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. For proper appreciation of contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it is necessary to refer to the relevant facts in brief. The 1st respondent University issued advertisement, dated 27.09.2010 inviting applications for 100 posts of Junior Assistants-cum-Typists. The said 100 posts have been divided into various zones and the rule of reservation for each zone has been specified in the notification itself. The Districts of Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Rangareddy and Hyderabad have been shown in Zone-VII i.e., “Southern Telangana Zone” in which 31 vacancies are notified. Out of the said 31 vacancies, one post is allotted to BC-E (women) category. The writ petitioner who is a resident of Mahabubnagar District and belongs to BC-E category submitted her application in respect of the posts notified in Zone-VII and she was qualified in the written test. Similarly the respondent No.2 herein, who too belongs to BC-E (women) category, submitted her application in respect of posts in Zone-VII and she was also qualified in the written test. Both of them along with other qualified candidates appeared for the interview. However, when the results were declared by the 1st respondent, it was found that the 2nd respondent was selected and appointed under BC-E (women) category in Zone-VII. Both of them along with other qualified candidates appeared for the interview. However, when the results were declared by the 1st respondent, it was found that the 2nd respondent was selected and appointed under BC-E (women) category in Zone-VII. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein filed W.P.No.5628 of 2011 contending that the selection and appointment of the 2nd respondent who is a non-local candidate so far as Zone-VII is concerned, is arbitrary and illegal. It was alleged in the writ petition that the 2nd respondent passed her SSC in the year 1984 having studied in the Railway High School, Guntakal, Anantapur District and that thereafter she had shifted to Sholapur, Maharashtra State and studied Intermediate at Sholapur during 1984-1986. She also did her graduation from Shivaji University, Maharashtra State. Thus, according to the writ petitioner, the 2nd respondent cannot be treated as a local candidate within the meaning of Para-7 of the Presidential Order in respect of Zone-VII. The 2nd respondent in her counter-affidavit stated that she had completed SSC from Guntakal, Anantapur District in the year 1984. Thereafter, on 4.7.1988 she got married and had shifted to Hyderabad. Since then she has been residing at Hyderabad along with her husband, who was born and brought up at Hyderabad. The fact that she did her graduation from Shivaji University, Maharashtra State was not disputed, however it was stated that it was through distance education. It was also pleaded that as required in the notification dated 27.9.2010 she had produced the nativity certificate issued by the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District, dated 22.12.2010 showing that she has been residing in Ward No.22 of Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District for the last four years. On the basis of the said certificate, it is contended that she was rightly treated as a local candidate in respect of Zone-VII and therefore her selection and appointment against the post allotted to BC-E (women) category in Zone-VII cannot be held to be illegal on any ground whatsoever. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent University, it was contended that when a candidate produced a nativity certificate as required in the notification, there was no need to ask for study certificates for determination of the candidate’s nativity and that the study certificates would be taken into consideration only where the nativity certificate was not produced by the candidate. It was also stated that in fact the 2nd respondent was working as a casual labourer in the University from July, 1993 onwards and therefore it cannot be said that she was not a local candidate. So far as the marks secured in the written test and interview were concerned, it was stated that as per the merit list, the 2nd respondent stood at Sl.No.1 as she had obtained 94 marks in total and the writ petitioner who secured 92 marks was figured in 2nd place. Therefore the 2nd respondent was rightly selected and appointed. The learned Single Judge has accepted the contention of the respondents that as per the Para-7 of the Presidential Order, the residence test is to be applied to all the candidates who have failed to put in the prescribed period of education in a particular area. Thus the appointment of the 2nd respondent on the basis of the nativity certificate issued by the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was upheld. We have already seen that as per the notification dated 27.9.2010, Zone-VII (Southern Telangana Zone) comprises four districts namely Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Rangareddy and Hyderabad. As per Para-6 (2) of the Presidential Order, each zone shall be regarded as a ‘local area’ for direct recruitment to the posts in any local cadre under the State Government. In Para-2 of the Presidential Order, the expressions ‘local area’ and ‘local candidate’ are defined as under: 2 (1) (c) ‘local area’, in relation to any local cadre, means the local areas specified in paragraph 6 for direct recruitment to posts in such local cadre, and includes, in respect of posts belonging to the category of Civil Assistant Surgeons, the local area specified in sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 8 of this Order; 2 (1) (f) ‘Local Candidate’ in relation to any local area, means a candidate who qualifies under paragraph 7 as local candidate in relation to such local areas; It is not disputed before us that Zone-VII is treated as a local area within the meaning of Para-2 (1) (c) and as per Para-2 (1) (f) the local candidate in relation to the said local area shall be a candidate who qualifies under Para-7 as a local candidate in relation to the local area shown under Zone-VII. Para-7 of the Presidential Order may be reproduced for ready reference: “Para 7. Para-7 of the Presidential Order may be reproduced for ready reference: “Para 7. 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 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 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. (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 toany 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 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; or (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; or (2) where the period of his residence in two or more local areas are equal, such local areas where he has resided last in such equal periods; (b) in cases where no minimum educational qualifications has been prescribed for recruitment to the post, if he has resided in the State for a period of not less than seven years immediately preceding the date on which the post is notified for recruitment, 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 periods of his residence is 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 recognized by the State Government, a University ors other competent authority; (ii) ‘relevant qualifying examination, in relation to a post’ means; (A) the examination, a 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; and (iii) in reckoning the consecutive academic years during which a candidate has studied, any period of interruption of his study by reason of his failure to pass any examination shall be disregarded. (iv) The question whether any candidate for direct recruitment to any post 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 parents.” (emphasis supplied) As could be seen, Para-7 which deals with determination of local candidate in relation to a local area is in two parts. It is apparent that sub-para-2 (2) of Para 7 is applicable only where a candidate is not regarded as a local candidate under sub-para-(1) in relation to the local area in respect of which the post is notified for recruitment. Sub-para (1) of Para 7 is again in two parts. Whereas the first part deals with the cases where a minimum educational qualification is prescribed for recruitment to the post, the second part deals with the cases where no minimum educational qualification is prescribed for recruitment to the post. Since a minimum educational qualification is prescribed in the notification dated 27.09.2010 for the posts notified, the second part i.e. Para 7(1) (b) is not applicable. Coming to Para 7 (1) (a) as per the criteria laid down therein, a candidate shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to a local area if he has studied in an educational institution in such local area for a period of not less than four consecutive academic years preceding the relevant qualifying examination. Coming to Para 7 (1) (a) as per the criteria laid down therein, a candidate shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to a local area if he has studied in an educational institution in such local area for a period of not less than four consecutive academic years preceding the relevant qualifying examination. In a case where a candidate has not studied in any educational institution during the whole or any part of the specified four years period, then the residence test has to be applied and it has to be seen whether the said candidate has resided in that local area for a period of not less than four years preceding the date of commencement of the qualifying examination in which he appeared. Thus, it is clear that whereas the criteria laid down in Para 7(1) (a) (i) is based on the locality in which the candidate prosecuted his studies for a minimum period of four consecutive academic years preceding the relevant qualifying examination, the criteria laid down in Para 7 (1) (a) (ii) is based on residence of the candidate for a minimum period of four years as specified there under. We may also add that having regard to the Explanation (ii) to Para-7 wherein the meaning of ‘relevant qualifying examination’ in relation to a post has been explained, the SSC which is equivalent to the Matriculation examination has to be taken as the relevant qualifying examination for the posts notified in the notification dated 27.09.2010 for the purpose of determining the local candidate under Para-7. Admittedly, the dispute is only with regard to the post notified under BC-E (women) category in Zone-VII which comprises of Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Rangareddy and Hyderabad Districts. Therefore, at the outset, it is necessary to examine whether the respondent No.2 can be regarded as a local candidate in relation to the local area of Zone-VII. The 2nd respondent has admittedly not studied in any of the four districts comprising in Zone-VII namely Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Rangareddy and Hyderabad, but she prosecuted her studies upto SSC at Guntakal in Anantapur District. To be more precise, she had studied at Guntatakal in Anantapur District the required four consecutive academic years preceding the relevant qualifying examination i.e., SSC and passed SSC from the same place. Admittedly, Anantapur District does not fall within Zone-VII. To be more precise, she had studied at Guntatakal in Anantapur District the required four consecutive academic years preceding the relevant qualifying examination i.e., SSC and passed SSC from the same place. Admittedly, Anantapur District does not fall within Zone-VII. Therefore, she has not satisfied the criteria laid down in Para 7 (1) (a) (i). It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.2 did not reside in the local area of Zone-VII at any point of time for the period required in Para-7 (1) (a) (ii). Consequently, the criteria laid down on the basis of residence in Para-7 (1) (a) (ii) is also not satisfied. Therefore, the 2nd respondent cannot be regarded as a local candidate under sub-para 1 of Para-7 (1) (a) in relation to the local area for Zone-VII. We may also add that in the light of the admitted fact that the respondent No.2 prosecuted her studies continuously upto SSC at Guntakal in Anantapur District, as per Para 7 (1) (a) (i) indisputably she has to be regarded as a local candidate in relation to local area of Anantapur District or the Zone in which the said district falls. Once it is held that the respondent No.2 is regarded as a local candidate in respect of Anantapur District based on the fact that she had studied in a recognized educational institution for a period of not less than four consecutive academic years preceding the SSC examination, in our opinion Para-7 (2) has no application at all. At the cost of repetition, we may add that Para-7 (2) comes into operation only where a candidate is not regarded as a local candidate under Para-7 (1) in relation toany local area. Be it noted that the expression used in Para-7 (2) is “any local area”. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that in case a candidate fails to establish that he is a local candidate basing on the study of four consecutive academic years, then the candidate can also be claimed as local candidate basing on his residence. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that in case a candidate fails to establish that he is a local candidate basing on the study of four consecutive academic years, then the candidate can also be claimed as local candidate basing on his residence. In our considered opinion, Para-7 (2) is attracted only where the candidate passed the minimum educational qualification from a particular local area, but has not studied four consecutive academic years preceding the relevant qualifying examination in any educational institution in such local area and has also not resided in that local area for a minimum period of four years immediately preceding the date of commencement of the relevant qualifying examination and thus is not regarded as a local candidate in relation to any local area. It also appears to us that the reference to para-9 of the definition of ‘local candidate’ in G.O.Ps.No.729, dated 1.11.1975 is inappropriate for deciding the controversy involved in the present case. As we could see, it was issued by the State Government providing certain clarifications with regard to the implementation of the Presidential Order and the same cannot have any overriding effect. In fact, we found that the last sentence in para9 of G.O.Ps.No.729, dated 1.11.1975 which was extracted in the order under appeal was only with reference to Para-7 (1) of the Presidential Order. We may also add that the residence test is provided both in Para-7 (1) and Para-7(2). A careful reading of Para-7 shows that the residence test under sub-para (1) has to be applied where a candidate has not studied in any educational institution during the whole or any part of the four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared for the relevant qualifying examination. On the other hand, the residence test under sub-para (2) has to be applied where a candidate has not studied in the educational institutions in any local area during the whole or any part of the seven consecutive academic years preceding the relevant qualifying examination but has resided in the State during whole of the said period of seven years. In the light of the above discussion, the respondent No.2 shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to the local area of Anantapur District. In the light of the above discussion, the respondent No.2 shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to the local area of Anantapur District. Consequently, she cannot be regarded as a local candidate in relation to the local area of Southern Telangana Zone (Zone-VII) specified in the notification dated 27.9.2010. The fact that she has been residing in Rangareddy District from 1993 onwards has no relevance and is of no consequence at all for the purpose of determining her status as local candidate under Para-7 of the Presidential Order. Since she had admittedly studied in a recognized educational institution for not less than four consecutive years in Anantapur District immediately preceding the minimum educational qualification, which is enough to treat her as local candidate of that local area, in our considered opinion, the question of residence test does not arise at all. Once it is held that the respondent No.2 is not a local candidate in relation to Zone-VII, the next candidate in the merit list has to be selected and appointed. Since the writ petitioner has admittedly stood in second place in the merit list, a right for consideration for appointment is created in her favour and therefore the contention advanced on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the selection of the respondent No.2 is devoid of any merit. The further contention that having participated in the written test and interview without raising any objection, the petitioner on being unsuccessful cannot now turn round and challenge the selection process is equally untenable since this is a case where the selection and appointmentp of the 2nd respondent is challenged on the ground that she failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent namely K.H. SIRAJ v. HIGH COURT OF KERALA (2006) 6 SCC 395 ) and MARRIPATI NAGARAJA & OTHERS v. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & OTHERS (2007) 11 SCR 506) are misplaced and have no application to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly, the order under appeal is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed. In the result, W.P.No.5628 of 2011 shall stand allowed as prayed for. No costs.