JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Since common facts as well as issues are involved in the above captioned cases, same were heard together and are now being disposed of vide common judgment. 2. For having bird’s eye view, facts shorn of unnecessary details but relevant for adjudication of cases at hand are that Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, with a view to fill up the posts of Drawing Master, PET and Shastri on batch wise basis sent communication dated 14.10.2016 (Annexure A-4 in all the petitions) to the petitioners asking them to come present for interview against the post(s) reserved for Scheduled Caste (Unreserved) in Kinnaur District. Though pursuant to aforesaid interview letters, petitioners appeared in the interview, but their candidature was not considered for appointment in light of instructions contained in notification No. PLG-F (TDM) 35-1/05 dated 16.8.2004 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Tribal Development, as is evident from mark list of interview placed on record as Annexure A-6 in the respective petitions. 3. Since despite being fully qualified to be appointed against the posts in question, candidature of the petitioners was not considered, they approached the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal by way of OA Nos. 2263, 2448 and 2265 of 2017, which now on account of abolishment of the Tribunal stand transferred to this Court, praying therein for following main reliefs : “(i) That the impugned decision reflected in letter dated 16.08.2004, Annexure A-5 whereby for appointment to class-III and class-IV posts in the areas specified therein has been restricted to “local candidates” of such areas may kindly be quashed and set aside: (ii) That the letter dated 16.08.2004, Annexure A-5, may kindly be quashed and set aside being ultra-vires the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 335 of the Constitution of India. (iii) That the impugned action of respondent No.4 of considering the applicant ineligible on the basis of Annexure A-5 on the ground that he is not a local candidate, may also be quashed and set aside and the respondent department may be directed to offer appointment to the applicant to the post of Drawing Master reserved for SC (UR) from 06.03.2017, the date from which appointment has been offered to private respondent pursuant to same selection process, with all consequential benefits. (iv) That if it becomes necessary to quash the appointment of private respondent made vide order dated 6.3.2017, Annexure A-4/A, in order to offer appointment to the applicant, in that event appointment order of private respondent at Annexure A-4/A may also be quashed and set aside.” 4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein though it has been not disputed that at the time of interview, petitioners were having prescribed educational qualification for being appointed against the posts in question, however, they have claimed that in terms of instructions dated 16.8.2004, petitioners being not resident of Kinnaur area, could not be offered appointment against the posts in question. It has been stated in the reply that as per instructions dated 16.8.2004, Class-III and Class-IV posts in district cadres are to be filled up amongst the local residents of the District Kinnaur. 5. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, vehemently argued that though careful perusal of instructions dated 16.8.2004 sought to be relied by the respondent-State are not legally sustainable, but even otherwise bare perusal of same nowhere suggest that all posts of class-III and IV category are to be filled up from amongst the candidates belonging to the district Kinnaur. He submitted that even otherwise, aforesaid instructions if permitted to sustain, would amount to 100% reservation to the local population of District Kinnaur, which is not permissible under the law. While inviting attention of this Court to the provisions contained under Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India, learned Senior Counsel, argued that Parliament is only competent to make law, if any, with regard to requirement as to the residence within the state or Union Territory for public employment. He further argued that though while refuting the claim of the petitioners, respondents have placed heavy reliance upon the notification dated 16.8.2004, but even otherwise, respondent-State, at one point of time, realizing that such instructions are not in conformity with the conditions contained under Article 16 (3) of the Constitution of India itself clarified that Article 16 (3) of the Constitution of India empowers Parliament for making any law prescribing any requirement as to the residence within that state or UT prior to such employment or appointment. He stated that bare reading of Chapter-4 of Handbook on Personnel Matters V-1, (2nd Edition) clearly reveals that State of HP had made rules prescribing a residential requirement for appointment to the non-gazetted posts in Himachal Pradesh, but same ceased to be in force with effect from 20.3.1974. He stated that since rules prescribing residential requirement as have been taken note herein above made by the Government of India in terms of Rules 16 (3) of the Constitution of India, ceased to exist w.e.f. 20.3.1974, Government of Himachal Pradesh was otherwise not competent to prescribe or make condition with regard to residence while notifying vacancies for appointment. To substantiate his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Sharma, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner placed heavy reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in A.V.S. Narasimha Rao and Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., 1969 (1) SCC 839 , wherein it has been held that the legislative power to prescribe residential qualification for employment is exclusively conferred on Parliament. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since petitioners herein were fully qualified to be appointed against the posts in question at the time of interview held in terms of interview letters, they deserve to be offered appointment from the due date. 6. While refuting the aforesaid submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that though petitioners at the time of the interview were having requisite education qualification, but since they were not local residents of the tribal District of Kinnaur, their candidature could not be considered in light of notification dated 16.8.2004 and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondent-State by denying appointment to the petitioners. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that impugned action of the respondents rests upon notification dated 16.8.2004 (Annexure A-5), issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which is reproduced herein below : “No.PLG-F(TDM)35-1/05 Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Tribal Development From The Pr. Secretary (TD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. To, 1. All the Administrative Secretaries to the Govt. of H.P. 2. All the Heads of Departments in H.P. 3. All the Divisional Commissioners in H.P. 4. All the Deputy Commissioner in H.P. 5. Secretary (TD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. To, 1. All the Administrative Secretaries to the Govt. of H.P. 2. All the Heads of Departments in H.P. 3. All the Divisional Commissioners in H.P. 4. All the Deputy Commissioner in H.P. 5. The Resident Commissioner, Pangi at Killar, Distt, Chamba, H.P. 6. The Resident Commissioner, Bharmour, Distt. Chamba. 7. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Spiti Distt. Lahaul-Spiti at Kaza. Dated Shimla-2, the 16th August, 2004. Subject: Reservation in appointment to the Class-Ill and Class-IV Services in District Cadre posts in the Scheduled Areas. Sir, The matter regarding adequate representation to the local Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste members of the Scheduled Areas in District cadre posts was under consideration of the State Government. In the Scheduled Areas of the State i.e. Districts of Kinnaur and Lahaul & Spiti and Pangi & Bharmour Sub-disivisons of Chamba District, the average local scheduled tribes population is 69.27% and the average local Scheduled Caste population is 17.90%. The Scheduled Tribes population ranges from about 57% in Kinnaur District to about 85% in Pangi Sub-division of Chamba District and similarly the population of local Scheduled Castes in the Scheduled Areas ranges from about 7% in Lahaul & Spiti District to about 26% in Kinnaur district. There is no OBC population in the scheduled Areas. 2. The vertical reservation prescribed in the State of Himachal Pradesh for appointment to the Class-Ill and Class-IV services by direct recruitment is 5% for Scheduled Tribes, 22% for Scheduled Castes and 18% for OBCs which is applicable to the District Cadre posts in Scheduled Areas also. Hence, the present reservation policy does not provide opportunities for adequate representation to the local scheduled Tribe communities in the District Cadre posts. 3. Though, as per the 9 Judges bench judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney case, reservation contemplated in clause 4 of Article 16 should not exceed 50% but at the same time the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgement in Indra Sawhney case has clearly taken a view that while 50% shall be the rule, it is necessary not to put out of consideration certain extra ordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of this country and the people. It might happen that if far flung and remote areas, the population inhabiting those remote areas might, on account of their being out of the main stream of National Life and in view of conditions peculiar to and Characteristic of them need to be treated in a different way, some relaxation in this strict rule may become imperative. 4. These areas have been scheduled in the Constitution Keeping in view the remoteness, backwardness, and special cultural characteristics of people living in these areas. For economic development of these areas, Integrated Tribal development Project (ITDP) concept has been introduced so as to raise their level of development at par with the main stream population. However, the population in the scheduled areas still remain backward in terms of literacy, incomes etc. Their access to institutional infrastructures also is limited due to geographical constraints, lack of adequate and appropriate personnel in health and educational institutions etc. The existing reservation policy is not only contrary to demographic composition in the scheduled areas but is also contrary to the spirit of providing a mechanism to ensure adequate representation to these people in the Government services, thereby depriving them of the opportunities in Government Services. 5. Now, therefore, the State Government has decided to provide reservations to the local Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes candidates in the Scheduled Areas of HP as early as possible in proportion to their population and accordingly prescribe the reservation in the District Cadre posts in Class-III and Class-IV grade/services to each category as under :- (i) Kinnaur District: (i) 60% reservation in the posts for local Scheduled Tribes and 25% of the posts for local Scheduled Caste candidates. (ii) Lahaul & Spiti: 78% reservation in the posts for local Scheduled Tribes and 7% of the postsfor local Scheduled Castes candidates. (iii) Pangi Sub-division of Chamba District: 75% reservations in the posts sanctioned for Pangi Sub-division borne on District Cadre posts for local Scheduled Tribes and 10% of such posts for local Scheduled Castes candidates. (iv) Bharmour Sub-division of Chamba District: 72% reservation in the sanctioned posts for Bharmour Sub-division borne on District Cadre for local Scheduled Tribes and 13% of such posts to the local Scheduled Castes candidates. 6. (iv) Bharmour Sub-division of Chamba District: 72% reservation in the sanctioned posts for Bharmour Sub-division borne on District Cadre for local Scheduled Tribes and 13% of such posts to the local Scheduled Castes candidates. 6. The local members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes of such Scheduled Areas will not be eligible to avail reservation in District Cadre posts in the other Districts outside the Scheduled Areas. The local Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes members of Pangi and Bharmour Sub-division of Chamba District will not be eligible to avail reservation in District Cadre posts even within Chamba District against the posts sanctioned for non-Scheduled Area of Chamba District. 7. The above instructions may be followed with immediate effect. 8. Horizontal reservations for various categories like Ex-serviceman etc. as prescribed by Department of Personnel Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time will be applicable as such in the Scheduled: Area slos. This issues with concurrence of Law Department. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Pr. Secretayr (TD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.” Close scrutiny of instructions, reproduced herein above suggests that State of Himachal Pradesh decided to provide reservation to the local Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes candidates in the scheduled area of the State as early as possible in proportion to their population and accordingly prescribed the reservation in the district cadre posts in class-III and Class-IV Grade/services to each category. In Kinnaur, 60% of the reservation in the posts came to be provided for local scheduled tribes and 25% of the posts for local scheduled caste candidates, meaning thereby, 15 % posts are yet to be filled by other categories. Similarly, in Lahaul and Spiti, 78% of the posts came to be reserved for local Scheduled Tribes and 7% of the posts for local Scheduled Castes candidates. For Pangi Sub-division of Chamba District, 75% of the posts sanctioned for Pangi Sub-division borne on District Cadre came to be reserved for local Scheduled Tribes and 10% of such posts for local Scheduled Castes candidates. For Pangi Sub-division of Chamba District, 75% of the posts sanctioned for Pangi Sub-division borne on District Cadre came to be reserved for local Scheduled Tribes and 10% of such posts for local Scheduled Castes candidates. In Bharmour Sub-division of Chamba District, 72% of sanctioned posts for Bharmour Sub-division borne on District Cadre came to be reserved for local Scheduled Tribes and 13% of such posts to the local Scheduled Castes candidates, meaning thereby, major chunk of posts are/were to be filled in from the candidates belonging to SC/ST of Kinnaur, Lahaul Spiti, Pangi and Bharmaur, but yet in all, 15% of the posts are/were to be filled from other categories. Though notification dated 16.8.2004 appears to have been issued in complete violation of law/mandate given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in A.V.S. Narasimha Rao’s (supra) and as such, same is not sustainable in the eye of law, but even otherwise in any event, reservation could not exceed 50% of the total posts. Though very object of issuance of aforesaid notification is seen or accepted that is to provide opportunity to local population to have employment in government services, even then, 15% of the posts could be filled in from the candidates hailing from other parts of the State. 8. Most relevant question needs to be determined in the instant case is that “whether by way of notification dated 16.8.2004, issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, State, could prescribe condition of residence, if any, while offering public employment in any part of the State?” 9. Before exploring answer to the aforesaid question, it would be apt to take note of the provision contained under Article 16 of the Constitution of India : “16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.- (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect or, any employment or office under the State. (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect or, any employment or office under the State. (3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office [under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory] prior to such employment or appointment. (4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. (5) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.” 10. Article 16 of the Constitution of India talks about the equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. It has been categorically prescribed in the aforesaid provision of law that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 16(2) clearly provides that no citizen shall, on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of any employment or office under the State. Article 16 (3) if read in its entirety, clearly provides that it is only parliament, which is competent to make any law prescribing requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment. Though Article 16(4) empowers State for making any provision for reservation of posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in its opinion, is not adequately represented in the services under the State, but definitely it has no power to legislate with regard to requirement as to the residence while offering public employment within particular area of the State. Similarly, Article 16(4)(A) provides that State is competent for making any provision for reservation in matter of promotion with consequential seniority, but definitely, it is not competent to make provision if any, with regard to requirement as to the residence within any part of the State, rather such power lies with the parliament only as has been provided in Article 16 (3). 11. At this stage, it would be also apt to take note of Article 35 of the Constitution of India, which is as under : “35. Legislation to give effect to the provisions of this Part- Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,- (a) Parliament shall have, and the Legislature of a State shall not have, power to make laws (i) with respect to any of the matters which under clause ( 3 ) of Article 16, clause ( 3 ) of Article 32, Article 33 and Article 34 may be provided for by law made by Parliament; and (ii) for prescribing punishment for those acts which are declared to be offences under this Part; and Parliament shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Constitution, make laws for prescribing punishment for the acts referred to in sub clause (ii); (b) any law in force immediately before the commencement of this Constitution in the territory of India with respect to any of the matters referred to in sub clause (i) of clause (a) or providing for punishment for any act referred to in sub clause (ii) of that clause shall, subject to the terms there of and to any adaptations and modifications that may be made therein under Article 372, continue in force until altered or repealed or amended by Parliament. Explanation.- In this article, the expression “law in force” has the same meaning as in Article 372” 12. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provision of law clearly suggests that parliament can only make law with regard to residence within state or UT under Article 16 (3) of the Constitution of India. The notification dated 16.8.2004, if read in entirety, clearly suggests that these are administrative instructions, which admittedly cannot override the constitutional provisions as discussed herein above. Once Article 35 empowers the Parliament only to legislate with regard to requirement of residence while offering public employment, there was no occasion for the state to issue notification dated 16.8.2004. 13. At this stage, Mr. Once Article 35 empowers the Parliament only to legislate with regard to requirement of residence while offering public employment, there was no occasion for the state to issue notification dated 16.8.2004. 13. At this stage, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General invited attention of this court to the Public Employment (Requirement As To Residence) Act, 1957 ( in short “the 1957 Act”) made by the parliament under Clause 3 of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the Central Government to make rules in respect of certain classes of public employment in certain areas, which reads as under : “3. Power to make rules in respect of certain classes of public employment in certain areas. (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules prescribing, in regard to appointments to- (a) any subordinate service or post under the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, or (b) any subordinate service, or post under the control of the Administrator of Himachal Pradesh, Manipur or Tripura, or (c) any service or post under a [local or other authority] (other than a cantonment board) within the Telangana area of Andhra Pradesh or within the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh, Manipur or Tripura, any requirement as to residence within' the Telangana area or the said Union territory, as the case may be, prior to such appointment. (2) In this section,- [(a) " Himachal Pradesh" includes the territories specified in sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 ;] (11 of 1966 ).] [(aa)]" subordinate service or post" means any service or post appointments to which are not notified in the Official Gazette but includes any service of tehsildars; (b) "Telangana area" comprises all the territories specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956 ).” 14. Mr. Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that in terms of Section 3 of the 1957 Act, Central Government itself made rules qua Himachal Pradesh, Manipur and Tripura Public employment (Requirement As To Residence) Rules, 1959 (In short “the 1959 Rules” ). He submitted that as per Rule-3 of the aforesaid Rules of 1959, Hand Book on personnel matters (V-1), provision was made to provide reservation to the people of the local area. Mr. He submitted that as per Rule-3 of the aforesaid Rules of 1959, Hand Book on personnel matters (V-1), provision was made to provide reservation to the people of the local area. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned senior counsel while fairly admitting aforesaid submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General argued that though in terms of clause 3 of the Article 16 of the Constitution of India, public employment (Requirement As The Residence) Act, 1957, was made by the parliament and thereafter, in terms of clause 3 of the aforesaid Act, 1959 Rules were framed, but it is not in dispute that such rules ceased to operate w.e.f. 20.3.1974, meaning thereby, there was no occasion for the State to make provision of requirement of residence while offering public employment in tribal areas after 20.3.1974. Having carefully perused clause 4.2 of Chapter 4 (Citizen and Domicile) of the Handbook on Personnel Matters (Vol-1) (Second Edition), this Court finds force in the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that 1959 Rules were extended from time to time, but ultimately ceased to be in force w.e.f. 20.3.1974, which reads as under : “4.2 Requirements as to Residence and place of birth etc. (a) Constitutional provisions Article 15 (1) of the Constitution of India provides that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Further Article 16 (2) of the Constitution provides that no citizen shall on ground only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. However, Article 16 (3) of the Constitution provides that nothing in that Article shall prevent the Parliament from or classes of making any law prescribing in regard to a class employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, Union or any local or other authority within, a State or to residence within that State or Territory, any requirement as Union Territory prior to such employment or appointment. (b) Act under Article 16 (3) of the Constitution and Rules made thereunder. Article 16 (3) of the Constitution empowers Parliament to make a law prescribing requirement as to residence within a State or Union Territory prior to employment or appointment as indicated above. (b) Act under Article 16 (3) of the Constitution and Rules made thereunder. Article 16 (3) of the Constitution empowers Parliament to make a law prescribing requirement as to residence within a State or Union Territory prior to employment or appointment as indicated above. The States Reorganisation Commission in 1955 observed that some of the States had adopted various devices to exclude from their services persons who were not permanent residents of such States. So long as Parliament did not legislate under exercise of the power conferred by Article 16 (3), discriminatory State regulations continued to operate by virtue of Art. 35 (b). Parliament enacted enacted the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957, in pursuance of the recommendations made by the Commission, and repealed all such discriminatory State Laws prescribing residence as a qualification for employment. By this Act, Parliament empowered the Central Government to make rules prescribing a residential requirement for appointment to the non-gazetted posts in Himachal Pradesh, Manipur and Tripura. A copy of the Rules notified in 1959, is at Annexure 4.1. These rules were extended from time to time but ultimately ceased to be in force with effect from 20th March, 1974. The Rules provided for residence within the Union Territory (of H.P./Manipur/Tripura) as an eligibility condition for appointment and for a certificate of eligibility for the purpose. However, after the Rules ceased to be in force, the Departments were requested to amend the relevant recruitment rules to delete provision for obtaining eligibility certificate etc. for employment.” 15. Record further reveals that on 4.9.1978, Government of Himachal Pradesh, again issued instructions to all administrative departments that Himachal Pradesh Manipur and Tripura, Public Employment (Requirement As To Residence) Rules were in vogue till 20.3.1974 and as such, provisions given with regard to qualification and residence cannot be pressed into service while offering public employment. Though vide aforesaid communication, direction was issued to amend the rules, but it appears that no corrective action was taken. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules, 1959, which were enacted in terms of provisions contained under Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act 1957, were laid challenge before the Hon’ble Apex Court in A.V.S. Narasimha Rao and Ors. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Rules, 1959, which were enacted in terms of provisions contained under Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act 1957, were laid challenge before the Hon’ble Apex Court in A.V.S. Narasimha Rao and Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., 1969 (1) SCC 839 , wherein Hon’ble Apex Court having taken note of the provisions contained in Articles 16 and 35 of the Constitution of India categorically ruled that Parliament can make any law, which prescribes any requirement as to the residence within the state or Union Territory prior to employment in the State or Union Territory. Most importantly, in the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court held that provision as contained in Article 16 speaks of a whole State as the venue for residential qualification and it is impossible to think that the Constituent Assembly was thinking of residence in Districts, Taluqas, cities, towns or villages. Relevant paras of the judgment passed in A.V.S. Narasimha Rao’s read as under : “3. The petitioners were appointed between December 27, 1956 and July 4, 1968. They challenge the Act, the Rules and the proposed action as ultra vires the Constitution. Their case is that Art. 16(3) under which the Act and the Rules purport to be made has been misunderstood as conferring a power to make, a law prescribing requirement as to residence in a part of a State. For this reason S. 3 of the Act is challenged as ultra vires the Constitution. Article 16 on which the Act, the Rules and the present action are all based, reads : "16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. (2) No citizen shall, on ground only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated 'against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. (2) No citizen shall, on ground only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated 'against in respect of, any employment or office under the State. (3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment. (4)........................ (5)...................... 4. The question is one of construction of this article, particularly of the first three clauses, to find out the ambit of the law taking power of Parliament. The first clause emphasises that ware shall be in India equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of employment or appointment to any office under the late. The word 'State' here is to be understood in the extended use given to it by the definition of that word Art. 12. The second clause then specifies a prohibition against discrimination only on the grounds of religion, race, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. The intention here is make every office or employment open and available to every citizen, and inter alia to make offices or employment in one part India open to citizens in all other-parts of India. The third pause then makes an exception. This clause was amended by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956. For the original words of the clause 'under any State specified in the First schedule or any local or other authority within its territory any requirement as to residence within-that State', the present words from 'under the Government' to 'Union territory' have been substituted. Nothing turns upon the amendment which seeks to apply of the exception in the clause to Union territory and to remove ambiguity in language. 5. The clause thus enables Parliament to make a law in a special case prescribing any requirement As to residence within a State or Union territory prior to appointment, as a condition of employment in the State or Union territory. 5. The clause thus enables Parliament to make a law in a special case prescribing any requirement As to residence within a State or Union territory prior to appointment, as a condition of employment in the State or Union territory. Under Art. 35(a) this power is conferred upon Parliament but is denied to the Legislatures of the States, notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, and under (b) any law in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution in respect to the matter shall subject to the terms thereof and subject to such adaptations that may be made under Art. 372 is to continue in force until altered or repealed or amended by Parliament. 6. The legislative power to create residential qualification for employment is thus exclusively conferred on Parliament. Parliament can make any law which prescribes. any requirement as to residence within the State or Union territory prior to employment or appointment to an office in that State or Union territory. Two questions arise here. Firstly, whether Parliament', while prescribing the requirement, may prescribe the requirement of residence in a particular part of the State and, secondly, whether Parliament can delegate this function by making a declaration and leaving the details to be filled in by the rule making power of the Central or State Governments. 7. Mr. S.V. Gupte, for the petitioners, points out that the Constitution is speaking of State and Union territory. It has already made a declaration that no person shall be disqualified for any office in the territory of India because of his residence in any particular part of India. The exception, therefore, must be viewed narrowly and not carried to excess by interpretation. The article speaks of residence in a State and means only that. If it chose to speak of residence in parts of State such as Districts, talauqas, cities, towns etc. more appropriate and specific language could have been used such as 'any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory or part of that State or Union territory'. Having used the word State, the unit State is only meant and not any part thereof. Reference is made to the history of the drafting of the Article and the debates in the Constituent Assembly which bear out this contention. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Setalvad bases his argument on two things. Having used the word State, the unit State is only meant and not any part thereof. Reference is made to the history of the drafting of the Article and the debates in the Constituent Assembly which bear out this contention. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Setalvad bases his argument on two things. He contends that the power is given to Parliament to make any law and, therefore, Parliament is supreme and can make any law on the subject as the article says. He very ingeniously shifts the emphasis to the words 'any requirement' and contends that the requirement may be also as to residence in the State or any particular part of State. 9. The claim for supremacy of Parliament is misconceived. Parliament in this, as in other matters, is supreme only in so far as the Constitution makes it. Where the Constitution does not concede supremacy, Parliament must, act within its appointed functions and not transgress them. What the Constitution says is a matter for, construction of the language of the Constitution. Which is the proper construction of the two suggested? By the first clause equality of opportunity in employment or appointment to an office is guaranteed. By the second clause, there can be no discrimination, among other things, on the ground of residence. Realising, however, that sometimes local sentiments may have to be respected or sometimes an inroad from more advance States into less developed States may have to be prevented, and a residential qualification may, therefore, have to be prescribed, the exception in clause (3) was made. Even so,, that clause spoke of residence within the State. The claim of Mr. Setalvad that Parliament can make a provision regarding residence in any particular part of a State would render the general prohibition lose all its meaning. The words 'any requirement' cannot be read to warrant something which could have been said more specifically. These words bear upon the kind of residence or its duration rather than its location within the State. We accept the argument of Mr. Gupte that the Constitution, as it stands, speaks of a whole State as the venue for residential qualification and it is impossible to think that the Constituent Assembly was thinking of residence in Districts, Taluqas, cities, towns or villages. We accept the argument of Mr. Gupte that the Constitution, as it stands, speaks of a whole State as the venue for residential qualification and it is impossible to think that the Constituent Assembly was thinking of residence in Districts, Taluqas, cities, towns or villages. The fact that this clause is an exception and came as an amendment must dictate that a narrow construction upon the exception should be placed as indeed the debates in the Constituent Assembly also seem to indicate. We accordingly reject the contention of Mr. Setalvad seeking to put a very wide and liberal construction upon the words 'any law' and 'any requirement'. These words are obviously controlled by the words 'residence within the State or Union territory' which words mean what they say, neither more nor less. It follows, therefore, that S. 3 of the Public Employment (Requirement as to Residence) Act, 1957, in so far as it relates to Telengana (and we say nothing about the other parts) and Rule 3 of the Rules under it are ultra vires the Constitution. 16. In view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, notification dated 16.8.2004 thereby prescribing condition of residence while offering public employment in tribal areas against Class-III and Class-IV posts is not sustainable and accordingly, same deserves to be quashed and set-aside being contrary to the provisions contained in Article 16 (3) of the Constitution of India. Since bare perusal of merit list placed on record alongwith all the petitions captioned above, clearly reveals that pursuant to interview letters, names of the petitioners were sponsored by the employment exchanges of their respective areas and they were having requisite qualification for the posts in question, coupled with the fact that they were placed higher in merit than others and yet their candidature was not considered in terms of instructions dated 16.8.2004, prayer made on their behalf for appointment from the due date against the posts in question deserves to be allowed. Though at this stage, Mr. Though at this stage, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that much water has flown under the bridge after 2016, when these interviews were conducted, but since rightful claim of the petitioners was denied on the basis of statutory instructions, which have been made in complete violation of the provisions contained under Article 16 (3) of the Constitution of India, claim of the petitioners cannot be allowed to be defeated on the ground that after year, 2016, many other persons have been appointed. Petitioners being fully qualified deserve to be offered appointment from due date. 17. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and notification dated 16.8.2004, thereby prescribing condition of residence while offering public employment in tribal areas against Class-III and Class-IV posts is quashed and set-aside being contrary to the provisions contained under Articles 16 and 35 of the Constitution of India and respondents are directed to offer the appointment to the petitioners against the posts in question from the due date, within eight weeks. Since petitioners had not worked against the posts in question from the due date, they cannot be held entitled to actual financial benefits, but definitely, they are entitled to seniority and notional pay fixation from the due date. If need so arises, State is always at liberty to create supernumerary posts to safeguard the interest of private respondents, who were admittedly lower in merit at the time of interview held in the year, 2016, otherwise they will have to give way to the petitioners. In the aforesaid terms, present petitions are disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.