ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 4th respondent in not issuing appointment order to the 1st petitioner to the post of Medical Officer, Dental, and also to declare the letter dated 21.06.2020 issued by the 7th respondent addressed to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 requesting to cancel the Local Status Certificate issued to the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri P. Anand Seshu, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner is a resident of Durgapuram, Vijayawada. She studied 1st class to 7th class at Kendriya Vidyalaya in Telangana region of combined Andhra Pradesh, 8th class in Arvankudy, Nilagiri District, Tamilnadu, and 9th class till completion of BDS and MDS in Dental Surgery in Krishna, Guntur and Nellore Districts in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. Since 2002, she has been staying in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. He would also submit that the 2nd petitioner, who is the none other than the father of the 1st petitioner, worked as a Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan from 15.12.1993 to 31.03.2000 and as a Librarian in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan, Vijayawada from 03.05.2002 till his retirement on 29.02.2020. While so, the 4th respondent issued a notification in Rc. 2696/Establishment/ Superintendent/Recruitment-01/2020 dated 30.09.2020 for recruitment of Medical Nursing, Paramedical and other staff sanctioned in health facilities and one post of Dental Medical Officer is notified at Sl.No. 36 of the said notification. As per the schedule given in the notification, the last date for submission of applications is 10.10.2020 and the date of issue of appointment orders is 19.10.2020. It is also the case of the petitioners that the pursuant to the said notification, the 1st petitioner submitted her application and she was allowed for written examination and she stood at S. No. 1 in the final merit list prepared for 73 candidates: (i) The learned counsel would further submit that even though the 1st petitioner stood at S. No. 1 in the merit list, but the respondent authorities did not issue appointment order in favour of the 1st petitioner. Then, the petitioners persuaded with the 4th respondent, but no reasons were assigned and kept pending the issuance of appointment order. Then, the petitioners persuaded with the 4th respondent, but no reasons were assigned and kept pending the issuance of appointment order. He would submit that on 21.06.2021 the 7th respondent addressed a letter to the 5th respondent stating that he conducted an enquiry about the genuinity of the Local Status Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner vide Mee-seva application and said certificate was not issued in conformity with the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 132 dated 13.06.2016. Therefore, he requested to cancel the Local Status Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. (ii) The learned counsel would further submit that even in the letter dated 21.06.2021 of the 7th respondent, it is categorically admitted that the 1st petitioner came to Andhra Pradesh in the year 2002 and continued her studied in different parts of residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. He would contend that even assuming that the Local Status Certificate issued vide mee-seva application is not in conformity with the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 132 dated 13.06.2016, the candidature of the 1st petitioner cannot be denied as the petitioner studied more than ten years consecutively in the State of Andhra Pradesh which proves that the 1st petitioner is a local candidate. The learned counsel would further submit that for determination of local status, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms. No. 674, General Administration (SPF) Department, dated 20.10.1975, under the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of direct Recruitment) Order, 1975, clause-7 of which reads as under: “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 a 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. (i) If he has studied in an educational institution or educational institutions in such a 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. (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 the local area for a period of not less than four years immediately proceeding the date on which the post is notified for recruitment. Explanation: For the purpose of the paragraph. (i) Educational institution means a University or any educational institution recognised by the State Government, a University or 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 the examination declared by the State Government to be equivalent to the Matriculation examination...... Sub-Clause 2 of the said Order 7 reads as follows: (2) A candidate for the direct recruitment to any post who is not regarded as a local candidate under subparagraph (1) in relation to any 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 a 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. ............. (iii) The learned counsel would submit that in view of determination of local status vide G.O.Ms. ............. (iii) The learned counsel would submit that in view of determination of local status vide G.O.Ms. No. 674 dated 20.10.1975, the 1st petitioner fulfilled the criteria of local status. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Miriyala Priyadarshini vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P. No. 23893 of 2016 and batch dated 11.08.2016) wherein it is held thus: “18. But insofar as the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh are concerned, there are two difficulties in addressing this issue. The first is that both these States existed as a combined State upto 01.06.2014. Therefore, the question of migration itself may not arise. Whenever a State is bifurcated into two and a native of the combined State chooses one of the two newly formed states, he cannot be said to be migrating from one State to another, in the strict sense of the term. 19. The second difficulty is that some of the petitioners in these cases were born in the regions which now form part of the State of Andhra Pradesh. They have been issued with Community Certificates by the concerned departments in the regions that now form part of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, it is actually a question of a person who was a native of one State, but was brought up in another State, getting back to his own native State. Hence, the principle that one may lose his community status upon migration cannot apply to the persons who were having valid community certificates issued by the concerned departments in the regions that now form part of Andhra Pradesh itself.” (iv) The learned counsel would submit that the ratio laid down in the afore-mentioned judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand, since the 1st petitioner studied 4th to 8th classes in Telangana State which is a combined State and thereafter, she prosecuted her studies from 9th class till MDS in the State of Andhra Pradesh and she has been residing in the State of Andhra Pradesh since 2002, more particularly, her permanent residence is at Vijayawada, due to the employment of the 2nd petitioner. (v) The learned counsel would further submit that the residential status of the 1st petitioner from 02.06.2014 does not take away the right of the 1st petitioner to claim local status certificate in Andhra Pradesh. More so, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the local status of Andhra Pradesh State as per G.O.Ms. Nos. 132 and 133 which are meant for the persons settled their residence after bifurcation i.e. after 02.06.2014. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services would submit that the 4th respondent addressed a letter dated 08.06.2021 to the 7th respondent for furnishing information about the genuinity of the local status certificate issued through mee-seva application in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said letter, the 7th respondent submitted a letter dated 21.06.2021 to the 5th respondent stating that the local status certificate issued in favour of the 1st petitioner is not in accordance with G.O.Ms. No. 132 and requested the 5th respondent to cancel the same. He would contend that the 1st petitioner is permanent resident of Vijayawada and not migrated to any part of the State of Andhra Pradesh from the State of Telangana within the period of three years from 02.06.2014. Further, she is not entitled to get local status certificate under G.O.Ms. No. 133 dated 13.06.2016. But, she is local candidate as per G.O.Ms. No. 674 dated 20.10.1975. In view of the above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court by an order dated 06.08.2021 granted an interim order directing the 4th respondent not to fill up the posts of Medical Officer, Dental for a period of two weeks and the same is extended from time to time. In compliance of the interim orders, the 4th respondent did not fill up the post of Medical Officer, Dental. 6. It is an admitted fact that the 1st petitioner is a permanent resident of Vijayawada in the State of Andhra Pradesh and she has been residing there since 2002 continuously. It is also not in dispute that the 1st petitioner pursued her studies from 9th class till completion of MDS within the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. 6. It is an admitted fact that the 1st petitioner is a permanent resident of Vijayawada in the State of Andhra Pradesh and she has been residing there since 2002 continuously. It is also not in dispute that the 1st petitioner pursued her studies from 9th class till completion of MDS within the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh. It is also not in dispute that the 1st petitioner has been staying with her father, 2nd petitioner, who worked as a Librarian in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Vijayawada since 2002 till his retirement in the year 2020. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per G.O.Ms. No. 674 dated 20.10.1975, the 1st petitioner fulfilled all the conditions for declaration of local status as mentioned supra and hence, the 1st petitioner is a local candidate in all respects for the subject selection, is valid and acceptable in view of the letter of the 7th respondent dated 21.06.2021 under which he requested the 5th respondent to cancel the local status certificate dated 14.07.2020 issued in favour of the 1st petitioner on the grounds that the 1st petitioner came to Andhra Pradesh State in the year 2002 itself and continued her studies in different parts of the Andhra Pradesh State, that the 1st petitioner is presently working as Assistant Professor in Department of Public Health Dentistry, Siddhartha Institute of Dental Sciences, Vijayawada and DMHO, Krishna, Machilipatnam, and that the local status certificate was erroneously issued by the then Tahsildar, Vijayawada North and hence, the conformation of its genuinity does not arise. Therefore, the finding of the 7th respondent is under misconception and contrary to the object of G.O.Ms. No. 674 dated 20.10.1975. 8. As per G.O.Ms. No. 133, General Administration (SPF & MC) Department, dated 13.06.2016, the candidates who migrated to any part of the State of Andhra Pradesh from the State of Telangana within a period of three years from the 2nd day of June, 2014 shall be regarded as the local candidate in the State of Andhra Pradesh at the place of his residence and be treated at par with the local candidates residing in that area, in accordance with such guidelines as may be issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of employment. Since the 1st petitioner studied from 9th class till completion her BDS graduation in 2011 in the State of Andhra Pradesh before the cut-off date 02.06.2014 and since she has been residing at Vijayawada in the State of Andhra Pradesh since 2002, she cannot be deprived of local status by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 133 dated 13.06.2016. further, the 4th respondent in his counter specifically admitted that before 02.06.2014, the 1st petitioner is the resident of Vijayawada holding a valid voter ID card issued by the Election Commission of India which should be declared that she is the resident of the State of Andhra Pradesh itself before the cut-off date. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Miriyala Priyadarshini case referred supra, the 1st petitioner cannot be said to be migrating from one State to another. 9. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the letter dated 21.06.2021 of the 7th respondent requesting the 5th respondent to cancel the local status certificate dated 14.07.2020 issued in favour of the 1st petitioner on the ground that it is not in conformity with the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 133, is nothing but misconception and without application of mind. Further, the inaction on the part of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in issuing appointment orders in favour of the 1st petitioner as per the merit list even after completion of entire selection process basing upon the letter of the 7th respondent is illegal, arbitrary and reprehensible. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the letter in L.Dis/C/105/2020 dated 21.06.2021 of the 7th respondent addressed to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is hereby set aside. The 4th respondent is hereby directed to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioner as per the final merit list of District Dental Medical Officer (RBSK) under NHM, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. 11. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.