JUDGMENT

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.:—Leave granted.

2. Heard counsel for the Union of India and the Respondents.

3. A common question arises in all these appeals which are directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench. It would be sufficient if we refer to the facts in Union of India v. Sanjay Pant (Appeal arising from SLP (C) 10396/ 91).

4. The respondent was granted a scholarship by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration for prosecuting his study in M.A. (Economics) at Jhansi in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He had to and he did execute a personal bond to serve Andaman and Nicobar Administration for a minimum period of three years soon after obtaining the qualification, failing which he was obliged to refund the scholarship. He was granted another scholarship for study in diploma course in the Indian Institute of Science, Ranchi, during the year 1986-87. This scholarship also carried a similar condition to serve the Andaman and Nicobar Administration for a period of three years after completing his course of study.

5. By a memorandum dated 24-12-1986, he was asked to appear before the Interview Board for selection to the post of Statistical Assistant on 23-1-1987. By a subsequent memorandum, he was asked to submit his local certificate and certificates of educational qualifications obtained by him. He was called to an interview, but was not selected on the ground that he did not have 10 years continuous education in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. He made a representation against his non-selection whereupon he was offered an ad hoc appointment. Since the respondent was already holding the post of Statistical Assistant on ad hoc basis, he declined to accept the said ad hoc appointment and approached the Tribunal. The defence of the Administration was that inasmuch as the respondent was not a local candidate, he was not offered a regular appointment.

6. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. on the following reasoning: In two cases viz., M. Palaniappan (1987) 3 Serv LJ 611 (CAT-Cal) and Smt. Rita Kumari (O.A. 1221/89 dated 23-11-1990) the Tribunal has already held that termination of ad hoc appointee on the ground of not being a local candidate is illegal. These decisions were followed and applied in P. G. James (1990) 2 Cal LT 89 (Tribunal) where it was held that refusal to offer regular appointment on the said ground is illegal. These cases conclude the issue in this case. Moreover, requirement of residence in a particular territory (in this case, Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands) is opposed to Article 16(2). Under Article 16(3) only a law made by the Parliament can impose such a restriction or requirement, as the case may be. Admittedly, Parliament has not made any such law. Accordingly the O. A. was allowed and it was declared that the respondent shall be deemed to have been appointed to the post of Statistical Assistant in a regular capacity with effect from 8-4-1987 (the date on which he was offered an ad hoc appointment) and that his seniority should be determined accordingly.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the requirement of being a local candidate for the purpose of employment, in the case of Andaman and Nicobar Administration was a provision made under clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution and is, therefore, not hit by clause (3) or (2) of Article 16 of the Constitution. The learned counsel, however, could not place before us any order, notification or other proceeding not even the Circular dated 12-9-1980 (sic) struck down in Palaniappan providing that for employment in Andaman and Nicobar Administration, the candidate should be a local candidate. Only two letters, viz., the letter from the Government of India bearing Reference No. 14011/6/ 77-A & N addressed to the Chief Commissioner. Andaman and Nicobar Administration and the letter No. U-1401 1/ 10 (S. 11) / 79 A & N dated 14-2-1984 from the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs addressed to th