Judgment : The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the 1st respondent – Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, in issuing the revised Notification for admission to Super Specialty Course of D.M. Medical Oncology, contrary to the eligibility criteria laid down in the initial Notification dated 23-04-2013, as illegal and consequently, to set aside the admission of the 3rd respondent in the said Course and to grant admission to him instead. The petitioner claimed that he is a resident of Secunderabad and that he has passed out the two-year Intermediate Course from Guntur Vikas College, Guntur District. He graduated in M.B.B.S. Course from J.N. Medical College, Belgaum and obtained Postgraduate Degree in M.D. General Medicine from M.R. Medical College, Gulbarga, Karnataka State. The 1st respondent, a University established by the State Legislature, and receiving substantial financial aid from the State, offered admission to various Super Specialty Medical Courses by issuing a Notification on 23-04-2013. Amongst various courses, it had offered admission to D.M. Medical Oncology Course. There are two seats available in the said Course. Those who possessed M.D. / D.N.B. in Medicine / Paediatrics / Radiotherapy are considered as eligible for admission to the said Course. The 1st respondent had conducted an entrance examination comprising of 100 multiple choice questions to be answered in 90 minutes. Selection of candidates for various Super Specialty Courses will be made on the basis of the rank obtained in the entrance examination. Further, the candidates, who secured a minimum of 50% of marks in the entrance examination only, will be qualified to appear for the counseling. Accordingly, the merit-list has been prepared and published and since the petitioner was declared to have secured only 47 marks, he was not treated to have qualified for admission to the Super Specialty Course. The petitioner has contested the correctness of the answers for three of the questions of the entrance examination and solicited the 1st respondent to accordingly correct the errors and award him 3 marks. The 1st respondent has examined the representation submitted by the petitioner in that regard, but found favour only in respect of one question out of three raised by him and awarded him 1 mark conceding the error committed in that regard earlier. The 1st respondent has examined the representation submitted by the petitioner in that regard, but found favour only in respect of one question out of three raised by him and awarded him 1 mark conceding the error committed in that regard earlier. Consequently, the total marks secured by the petitioner went up to 48, which is still below the required 50% of marks for rendering him to be eligible for admission to D.M. Medical Oncology Course. Though seven candidates have been declared as qualified at the entrance examination, only one of them has taken admission in D.M. Medical Oncology Course and thus, only one out of two seats could be filled in. Subsequently, the Dean of the Faculty of the 1st respondent has taken out a Notification calling for applications for admission to the remaining one seat in D.M. Medical Oncology Course. The last date for receipt of the application is prescribed as 19-09-2013. The Notification issued by the Dean invited applications from eligible candidates who are Indian Nationals for admission against that one seat of D.M. Medical Oncology Course instead of confining the area of selection to the eligible candidates who are residents of Andhra Pradesh. However, the petitioner again applied, pursuant to this Notification, and appeared for the entrance examination. He secured, this time, around 65 marks and was placed at rank No.2 in the merit order. The 3rd respondent herein was shown to have secured 71 marks and consequently, he was placed at rank No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the 3rd respondent is a resident of Karnataka State and he was never a resident of Andhra Pradesh and hence, he is not eligible for admission to the Super Specialty Course of D.M. Medical Oncology offered by the 1st respondent. Hence, this writ petition. Heard Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. P. Sarada, who accepted notice on behalf of the 1st respondent Institute. Sri Ashwani Kumar would contend that the first Notification issued by the 1st respondent on 23-04-2013 inter-alia dealt with the admission process for the two seats of D.M. Medical Oncology Super Specialty Course offered by the 1st respondent. Sri Ashwani Kumar would contend that the first Notification issued by the 1st respondent on 23-04-2013 inter-alia dealt with the admission process for the two seats of D.M. Medical Oncology Super Specialty Course offered by the 1st respondent. If one of the two seats offered therein could not, thus, be filled in, the 1st respondent cannot change the rules of admission later on against such a vacant seat and open up the process for admission on all India basis. The 1st respondent can only grant admission to those students, who are, normally, residents of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the second Notification inviting applications from all the Indian Nationals amounts to change of rules of the admission process half way through and it is impermissible for the 1st respondent to do so. It is further contended by Sri Ashwani Kumar that the petitioner, being a resident of Andhra Pradesh, has a right of preference, in the matter of admission to the courses offered by the 1st respondent, over the students drawn from other States than Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, this Court should interdict the admission of the 3rd respondent and the petitioner, being the next meritorious candidate, shall be granted admission to D.M. Medical Oncology Course. By the 32nd Amendment Act of the Constitution, a special Provision has been introduced by the Parliament with reference to the State of Andhra Pradesh, in the form of Article 371-D. By virtue of Clauses (1) and (2) thereof, the President has been empowered to make an Order with regard to education and public employment, providing for equitable opportunities and facilities and for protection of the interests of the local candidates of all the three regions in the State. Accordingly, the President has promulgated ‘the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission) Order, 1974’ (Presidential Order). All educational institutions, established and run by the State, are required to offer 85% of the seats available in every course of study for admission to only local candidates, as per the definitions contained in Paragraph 3 of the Presidential Order. The 1st respondent is recognized as a ‘State-wide University’, in terms of Para 2(1)(f) of the Presidential Order. All educational institutions, established and run by the State, are required to offer 85% of the seats available in every course of study for admission to only local candidates, as per the definitions contained in Paragraph 3 of the Presidential Order. The 1st respondent is recognized as a ‘State-wide University’, in terms of Para 2(1)(f) of the Presidential Order. As a result, in terms of Paragraph 6(1) of the Presidential Order, 85% of the seats available in every course of study offered by the 1st respondent are required to be filled in, in the proportion of 42 : 36 : 22 with the candidates of Andhra University local area, Osmania University local area and Sri Venkateswara University local area, respectively. But however, it is most important to notice that as per the proviso to Para 6(1) of the Presidential Order, where the seats offered in any course of study do not exceed 3, the requirement of Paragraph 6(1) does not apply. In order words, where the seats offered in any course of study are 3 or less than 3, the same need not be reserved to be filled in with local candidates. For the purpose of determining as to one is a local candidate or not, one of the two tests prescribed under Paragraph 4(1) is that he should have studied in an educational institution or educational institutions in such local area for a period of not less than 4 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 instant case, the qualifying examination for admission to the Super Specialty Course of D.M. Medical Oncology is M.D./D.N.B. Admittedly, the petitioner has studied his M.B.B.S. Course from J.N. Medical College, Belgaum and, thereafter, pursued his three-year M.D. General Medicine Postgraduate Course from M.R. Medical College, Gulbarga, both of which Institutions are situate in Karnataka State. Therefore, he does not answer the description of a ‘local candidate’ in terms of Paragraph 4. Even if the requirement of sub-para (2) of Paragraph 4 of the Presidential Order is to be applied to the case of the petitioner, he has not studied in any of the educational institutions in Andhra Pradesh within the period of 7 consecutive years ending with the academic year in which he first appeared at the relevant qualifying examination. Even if the requirement of sub-para (2) of Paragraph 4 of the Presidential Order is to be applied to the case of the petitioner, he has not studied in any of the educational institutions in Andhra Pradesh within the period of 7 consecutive years ending with the academic year in which he first appeared at the relevant qualifying examination. As is too well-known, the Postgraduate Medical Education of M.D. General Medicine is of three years duration, while M.B.B.S. Course is 5 ½ years duration, thus, consecutively, for 8 ½ years, the petitioner has studied in educational institutions outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the petitioner cannot consider himself to be a ‘local candidate’ for admission to any of the Super Specialty Courses of study offered by the 1st respondent. Since the Proviso to sub-para (1) of Paragraph 6 of the Presidential Order makes it explicitly clear that it will not apply in relation to any course of study in which the total number of available seats does not exceed 3, it becomes imperative to understand that the 1st respondent is not required to reserve 85% of the available seats in D.M. Medical Oncology Course in favour of local candidates of Andhra Pradesh so long as the seats offered by the 1st respondent in D.M. Medical Oncology Course do not exceed 3. In the instant case, in the initial Notification dated 23-04-2013, only two seats are offered for admission to the Super Specialty Course of D.M. Medical Oncology. Hence, both the seats need not be offered for admission to only local candidates. It is appropriate to notice that the Presidential Order never used the expression ‘non-local candidate’. It only dealt with and defined the expression ‘local candidate’. In juxta position to this expression ‘local candidate’, for whom 85% of seats are reserved, remaining 15% of the seats are considered (probably due to a misconception) as meant for ‘non-local candidates’. In fact, they are referred to in the Presidential Order as ‘unreserved’. All candidates, including those who answer the description of local candidates can compete against such seats. The correct way to understand the text and rigor of the Presidential Order, to my mind, is that it only seeks to reserve and provide for admission exclusively to the local candidates 85% of the seats available in every course of study. All candidates, including those who answer the description of local candidates can compete against such seats. The correct way to understand the text and rigor of the Presidential Order, to my mind, is that it only seeks to reserve and provide for admission exclusively to the local candidates 85% of the seats available in every course of study. In other words, these 85% of seats are insulated against competition of other meritorious candidates, who may not answer the description of a ‘local candidate’. Thus, the choice of admission is exclusively confined to the extent of 85% of the seats only in favour of the local candidates. That was the equitable measure contemplated and provided for by Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371-D. Since, Clause (10) of Article 371-D accords primacy to the contents of the said Article as well as the Provisions made by the President in the Orders made by him in terms of Clauses (1) and (2), the insulation from the rigour of Article 13(2) to the extent of 85% of the available seats in favour of local candidates against the competition by those who do not answer the description of the term ‘local candidate’, tested on the Principles of Article 14, is safeguarded. The clue to understand as to how to fill up, if no local candidate is available for admission, is provided for in Paragraph 7 of the Presidential Order, which declared that if a candidate in respect of a local area is not available to fill in the seats reserved or allocated in favour of local candidates in respect of that local area, such seats shall be filled as if they had not been reserved. Strict application of the rigor of Paragraph 7 of the Presidential Order would arise only when certain seats are reserved, at the first place, to be filled in by local candidates. When no such candidates are available, such seats are liable to be treated as ‘unreserved’. When once they become unreserved, the superior merit ranking of the candidate will get him the first right of choice as per the mandate enshrined in Article 14 of our Constitution. To that extent, the protection of insulation contained in Clause (10) of Article 371-D would not be available. In the instant case, the situation is slightly different. When once they become unreserved, the superior merit ranking of the candidate will get him the first right of choice as per the mandate enshrined in Article 14 of our Constitution. To that extent, the protection of insulation contained in Clause (10) of Article 371-D would not be available. In the instant case, the situation is slightly different. Since the number of seats offered in the course of study of D.M. Medical Oncology having not exceeded 3, as per the Proviso incorporated in sub-para (1) of Paragraph 6 of the Presidential Order, the question of reserving them for admission in favour of local candidates itself would not arise. In such a case scenario, going by the principle contained in Paragraph 7, both the seats are liable to be treated as ‘unreserved’ and on that basis, they should be filled in. In the instant case, the first seat was already filled in by one of the local candidates, who qualified at the first entrance examination. That was not put in issue at all. (Similarly all awarding marks to the petitioner at the first entrance test cannot be agitated after he accepted and appeared for the second entrance test.) Remaining one seat is now offered for the Indian Nationals. That is what Sri Ashwani Kumar objects. His contention is that the remaining one seat shall also be offered only to the residents of Andhra Pradesh, but not to the rest of the Indian Nationals. As was already pointed out supra, the insulation available to 85% of the seats to be offered exclusively to the local candidates without necessarily opening them up to all other Indian Nationals, is owing to the primacy accorded by Clause (10) of Article 371D. it is limited only to that extent but not beyond that. When once the insulation gets peeled off, the requirement to adhere to the principles in Article 14, 15(1) and 29(2) of our Constitution cannot be dispensed with at all. Hence, I have no hesitation to reject the contention canvassed by Sri Ashwani Kumar in this regard. Further, the second notification being in conformity of the mandate contained in Article 14 of our Constitution, it cannot be held as amounting to changing the rules of the game halfway through. Further, the petitioner had responded to the Notification issued second time for filling up the remaining one seat. He competed at the entrance examination. Further, the second notification being in conformity of the mandate contained in Article 14 of our Constitution, it cannot be held as amounting to changing the rules of the game halfway through. Further, the petitioner had responded to the Notification issued second time for filling up the remaining one seat. He competed at the entrance examination. He ended up securing the second rank. The 3rd respondent herein secured the first rank. Hence, the petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously. Admission of the 3rd respondent, therefore, cannot be faulted at all and hence, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and it is accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage, but however, without costs.