Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. It must be noted that para 4(a) as extracted above covers the cases of those candidates who studied in an educational institution or educational institutions 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, while para 4 (b) applies to the case of other candidates. For purposes of para 4(a) educational institution has been defined as a University or any educational institution recognized by the State Government, a University or other competent authority. The eligibility of a candidate who has studied during any part of the four years period in an unrecognized institution will have to be dealt with the under para 4(b). While considering the eligibility of a candidate to be regarded as a local candidate, under paragraph 4(a) of the Order by virtue of four consecutive years of Study in a local area, it should be noted that in reckoning the consecutive academic years of study, any interruption in the period of his study ,by reason of his failure to pass any examination shall be disregarded. For instance, a candidate who has studied in the IXth and Xth Classes and the Junior and Senior Intermediate Classes in institutions of the sale local area with a break of one year after the Xth class on account of failure to pass the Xth Class examination at the first attempt, shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to that local area for admission to a degree course in any institution in that area.

6. The Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Second Amendment Order, 1976 inserts a new sub-paragraph in the said 1974 Order-viz., sub-paragraph (2) to Paragraph 4 thereby making provision for considering the claims of persons, who under the old definition would have become non-local in relation to all local areas in the State. According to sub-para (2) (a) of Para 4, after amendment, if such a candidate 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 on, as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination, he shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to that local area where he had studied for the longest period out of the said period of seven years. In the event of the periods of study in two or more local areas being equal he shall be regarded as local candidate in relation to that local area where he studied during the last of the said equal periods. Clause (b) to sub-para (2) applies to a candidate who, 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 has not studied in educational institutions in any local area, but has resided in the State during the whole of the said seven years, the candidate shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to that local area where he has resided for the longest period out of the said seven year period. This residence test will be applies to candidates in whose cases there is a gap in study, occasioned otherwise than by reason of failure to pass in an examination, in the prescribed full term of seven years immediately preceding the relevant qualifying examination. It has also been provided that where the periods of residence in two or more local areas are equal, such a candidate shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to the local area where he resided last in such equal periods. The application of the liberalized definitions made through the Second Amendment Order are illustrated by the examples given in the Annexure – I. xxxxx xxxxx

13. The Government consider that in the large majority of cases falling under the above categories, “nativity” may not be in doubt. The Heads of Educational Institutions or other admission authorities may call for appropriate certificates of study/residence or employment in cases of doubt.” We shall, as we are obliged to in the instant case, proceed to deal with the purport of the said circular on the bedrock of the Presidential Order. Be it clarified, we are not called upon to decide upon the constitutional validity of the circular, but to understand the purport of the same through the interpretative purpose.

31. In Magan Mehrotra (supra) a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that reservation by way of institutional preference be maintained but also directed certain States to follow the pattern of institutional preferences as has been indicated in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra). Delhi University issued a notification on the basis of the judgment rendered in Magan Mehrotra (supra). The writ petitioners assailed the notification issued by the Delhi University as reservation was made by way of institutional preference for admission to post graduate courses. After the decision was rendered in Magan Mehrotra (supra), a two-Judge Bench referred the matter to a three- Judge Bench which ultimately directed it to be placed before a five-Judge Bench. The reservation of any kind, namely, residence or institutional preference in the constitutional backdrop was the subject matter of assail. The first question posed for consideration was whether the reservation on the basis of a domicile is permissible in terms of Clause 1 of Article 15 of the Constitution of India. The Court referred to the decision in D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat[19] and State of U.P. v. Pradip Tandon[20], and answered the issue in the negative. The second issue that the Court addressed was whether reservation by way of institutional preference comes within the suspected classification warranting strict scrutiny test. The Court referred to Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar[21] and various other authorities and opined that no case had been made out for invoking the doctrine of strict construction or intermediate construction. The third issue that the Court dwelled upon was whether the reservation by institutional preference is valid. The Court referred to the authorities in Jagadish Saran (supra), Dr. D.P. Joshi (supra), Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India[22] and various other decisions including that of Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) and opined that in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) a distinction was made between the undergraduate course i.e. MBBS course and post-graduate medical course as also super specialist courses and, therefore, the said authority sought to strike a balance of rights and interests of concerned. The Constitution Bench took note of the fact that the percentage of seats to be allotted on all-India basis, however, came to be modified in Dr. Dinesh Kumar (supra). It also took note of the fact that the directions issued from time to time regulating the admissions in different courses of study in the said case, the deviation of the said dicta by the two-Judge Bench in Dr. Parag Gupta (supra) wherein it created reservation on domicile which was forbidden in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra). The larger Bench also referred to the authority in AIIMS Students’ Union v AIIMS[23], T.M. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka[24] and eventually held as follows:-