AP HIGH COURT
| Main Number | WP 16100/2020 | SR Number | WPSR 19859/2020 |
| Petitioner | Dr.Ayesha Fathima | Respondent | The State of Andhra Pradesh |
| Petitioner Advocate | KALEPU YASHWANTH | Respondent Advocate | GP FOR MED HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE |
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA
WRIT PETITION No.16100 of 2020
ORDER:
Heard Ravi Teja Padiri, learned counsel representing Sri
Kalepu Yashwanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents.
2. This is an unfortunate case of the petitioner, who is a
resident of Peddapuram in the State of Andhra Pradesh and who
had her education at Yanam and in the State at Pondicherry. She
applied for the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon pursuant to
Notification No.1/2020 dated 16.06.2020. She was awarded marks
at 54.81 by the respondents and which is stated in the provisional
merit list. However, she is treated as ‘non-local’ of the relevant
zone and the clarification whatever offered by the petitioner was
not considered. It is the precise question involved in this matter to
the effect whether the petitioner is a local candidate in terms of
the Presidential Order of the year 1975 or she be treated a
‘non-local’.
3. In the course of hearing, Sri M.Vijaya Kumar, learned
advocate assisted this Court pointing out Para-7 of the above
Presidential Order and its effect.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government
Pleader have no quarrel with reference to application of Para-7 of
the presidential order.
5. Nonetheless, since a request is made on behalf of the
petitioner to permit her to make a detailed representation to the
respondent-Authorities setting out her claim as a native of State of
Andhra Pradesh and to declare her a local candidate in terms of
Presidential Order, it is desirable to accept the same. However,
learned Government Pleader requested to grant time to get
instructions from the respondent-Authorities in this matter. But
in view of the request by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
even if time is granted to learned Government Pleader to get
instructions in the matter, it may at best help to adjourn this
matter and to protract. Nothing positive would turn out, even if
such time is granted.
6. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is directed to
make a detailed representation of her claim particularly, with
reference to objections raised by the respondent-authorities as set
out in provisional selection list dated 17.08.2020, within a week
from this day. Upon receipt of such detailed representation of the
petitioner, which the respondents should necessarily acknowledge,
they are directed to dispose of the same within ten days therefrom,
assigning clear reasons.
7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
M.VENKATA RAMANA, J
Date: 10.09.2020
Note:
Issue C.C. today.
B/o.
pab
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA
WRIT PETITION No.16100 of 2020
DATE: 10.09.2020
pab
