JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao) Heard Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Guttpalem Vijaya Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for NTR Health University. 2. The parents of the petitioner are from Krishna District. Both her father and mother had completed their entire education within the State of Andhra Pradesh and were residents of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The father of the petitioner, on account of his employment in the Ministry of Defense, had to serve outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. On account of this reason, the petitioner pursued her education outside Andhra Pradesh from her primary schooling till the qualifying examination, for the purpose of admission into MBBS and BDS courses. 3. The petitioner appeared for UG NEET Examination-2024 and sought admission into MBBS and BDS courses under Competent Authority (Convenor) Quota for the academic year 2024-25 claiming admission in the 85% State Quota under the relevant Regulation of the notification for such admissions. However, the petitioner was unable to obtain local candidate status and completed her registration in the NEET portal under the category of Non-Local-APNL with AP Domicile. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the refusal of the respondent authorities, in treating her as a local candidate, for the purpose of admission, has filed the present writ petition. 5. The petitioner contends that she would have to be treated as a local candidate, as per the conditions in the notification, which are a replica of the Presidential Order, 1974. The stand of the petitioner is that even the students, who have studied outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, would be entitled to be recognized as local candidates, on the basis of the domicile and the residence of the parents of such candidate. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, reported in The Tahsildar, Hyderabad Urban Taluk, Hyderabad and Anr., vs. T. Venkata Reddy, AIR 1976 AP 408 . 6. The petitioner has also relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported in Meenakshi Malik vs. University of Delhi and Ors., (1989) 3 SCC 112 to contend that her period of stay outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, on account of their father’s employment, should be treated as local study and that she should be treated as a local candidate. 7. 7. The aforesaid judgment would not be applicable to the facts of this case, as the Presidential Order, 1974 was not available to the authorities in those cases. 8. In view of certain peculiar developments in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, Article 371-D of the Constitution of India was introduced in 1974, to provide for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State. For this purpose the President of India was empowered to take necessary steps, by order, for such equitable distribution of opportunities, in the matters of employment and education. In exercise of this power, conferred on the President of India, the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974, generally known as the Presidential Order, 1974, was issued. Under this order, the State was divided into various local areas and 85% of the seats in Educational Institutions and Public Employment at certain levels were reserved for local candidates of the said local areas. The order also specified the conditions under which a person would be declared to be a local candidate in a local area. Paragraph 4 of the Presidential Order, which reads as follows, set out these conditions: “4. Local Candidates:- 1) A candidate for admission to any course of study shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to a local area – (a) If he has studied in an educational institution or educational institutions in such local area for a period of not less than four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared in the relevant qualifying examination, or (b) Where, during the whole or any part of the four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination he has not studied in any educational institution, if he has resided in thaqt local area for a period of not less than four years immediately preceding the date of commencement of the relevant qualifying examination in which he appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared. 2) A candidate for admission to any course of study who is not regarded as a local candidate under subparagraph (1) in relation to any local area shall .— a) if he has studied in educational institutions in the State for a period of not less than seven consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination, be regarded as a local candidate in relation to (i) such local area where he has studied for the maximum period out of the said period of seven years; or (ii) where the periods of his study in two or more local areas are equal, such local area where he has studied last in such equal periods; or b) if, during the whole or any part of the seven consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination, he has not studied in the educational institution in any local area, but has resided in the State during the whole of the said period of seven years, be regarded as a local candidate in relation to – (i) such local area where he has resided for the maximum period out of the said period of seven years, or (ii) where the periods of his residence in two or more local areas are equal such local area he has resided last in such equal periods. Explanation – For the purposes of this paragraph, – (i) “educational institution” means a University or any educational institution recognized by the State Government, a University or other competent authority; (ii) “relevant qualifying examination”, in relation to admission to any course of study, means the examination, a pass in which the minimum educational qualification for admission to such course of study; (iii) In reckoning the consecutive academic years during which a candidate has studied, – a) Any period of interruption of his study by reason of his failure to pass any examination; and b) Any period of his study in a Statewide University or a Statewide educational institution, shall be disregarded. iv) The question whether any candidate for admission to any course of study has resided in any local area shall be determined with reference to the places where the candidate actually resided and not with reference to the residence of his parent or other guardian. 9. A similar situation was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 14.012.2020 in W.P.Nos.10319 of 2019 and batch. In that case, the petitioner had studied partly in Andhra Pradesh and had pursued his education from Class X to Class XII in Karnataka. Thereafter, the petitioner therein sought to be treated as a local candidate on the basis of the fact that his father had to pursue his employment in Bombay as he was a Central Government employee and therefore he should be treated as a local candidate. 10. In those circumstances, the Division Bench had considered the earlier judgment of this Court in The Tahsildar, Hyderabad Urban Taluk, Hyderabad and Anr., vs. T. Venkata Reddy, and also a Full Bench judgment of the erstwhile High Court in the case of Bathina Rajya Shilpa and etc. vs. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada and Ors., AIR 2002 AP 115 = 2001 SCC Online AP 1010. 11. After considering these two judgments, the Division Bench took the view that the petitioner therein would have been eligible to be considered as a local candidate, if the petitioner therein had studied for seven consecutive years within the State or had been residing within the State for seven consecutive years. On that basis, as the said petitioner had not studied seven consecutive years in the State of Andhra Pradesh nor was the petitioner a resident of the State of Andhra Pradesh for seven consecutive years. 12. It may also be noted that the erstwhile Division Bench in The Tahsildar, Hyderabad Urban Taluk, Hyderabad and Anr., vs. T. Venkata Reddy, had held that the domicile and residence of the parents could always be taken into account to decide whether the candidate was a local candidate or not. This view of the Division Bench has been, effectively overruled by the Full Bench in Bathina Rajya Shilpa and etc. This view of the Division Bench has been, effectively overruled by the Full Bench in Bathina Rajya Shilpa and etc. vs. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada and Ors., in view of the fact that only the residents and period of study of the petitioner is accepted as the criteria for categorization in the judgment of the Full Bench. 13. In the present case, the domicile or residence of the parents of the petitioner cannot be taken into account and it is only her residence or place of study that can be taken into account. 14. As the petitioner neither resided within the State of Andhra Pradesh nor studied within the State of Andhra Pradesh for the required period, she cannot be treated as local candidate for any local area in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 15. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.