( 1 ) THIS matter has been referred to this bench in view of the difference of opinion between learned Judges of this Court - s. R. Nayak, J and S. Ananda Reddy, J.- as regards quashing or otherwise of the order dated 19-6-1995 of the 1st respondent appointing respondent No. 2 as Record assistant and respondents 3 to 5 as attenders.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix of the matter is as under: the petitioner has passed SSC in march, 1983 and also studied two years vocational course during the years 1983-85 and got his name registered with the Employment exchange, Nellore, bearing reg. No. 5612/83 on 6-7-1983. He is a resident of Nellore District and thus a local candidate within the meaning of para 7 of Andhra Pradesh Public employment (Organization of Local cadres and Regulation of Direct recruitment) Order, 1975 (for short "the Recruitment Order" ).

( 3 ) THE District and Sessions Judge, nellore issued a notification on 16-2-1995 calling for applications from the eligible candidates for the posts of one Record assistant and five Attenders in the District unit of Nellore Judicial Department. The petitioner being qualified and eligible for the same, applied for the said posts on 20-2-1995. He was interviewed along with others, but he was not selected and by the impugned proceedings dated 19-6-1995 the 2nd respondent was appointed as Record assistant and respondents 3 to 5 were appointed as Attenders. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings alleging that since respondents 2 to 5 are not local candidates within the meaning of the recruitment order, the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the recruitment order. It is also alleged that the 2nd respondent is a resident of Kumool and the employment registration number furnished by her does not relate to Nellore district. Similarly, respondents 3 to 5 also do not belong to Nellore district and thus they are not local candidates. The Employment registration numbers furnished by them do not substantiate that they are on the rolls of employment Exchange, Nellore. The appointment of respondents 2 to 5 is contrary to the Circular of the High Court dated 23-12-1987. Respondents 2 to 5 have neither resided nor studied in Nellore district at any point of time.

( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit, the 1st respondent tried to justify the appointments of the respondents 3 to 5 stating that selection to the said posts need not be necessarily from local candidates only and a candidate possessing the requisite eligibility criteria can be appointed even though he is not a local candidate but is sponsored by employment Exchange. It is further stated that the appointment of respondents 3 to 5 is based on their qualifications and performance in the interview, which is relatively superior and meritorious than the petitioner.

( 5 ) THE High Court of Andhra Pradesh issued a Circular dated 25-6-1992 in Roc no. 3475/91/cl framing fresh norms and guidelines regulating the appointments to the post of Junior Assistant, Steno-typist, typist, Examiners, Readers, Copyists, amins, Drivers, Record Assistants and attenders in the Subordinate Courts. As per the said circular, the appointing authority is the District Judge and the method of appointment shall be by direct recruitment from the candidates sponsored by the employment Exchange and those who apply pursuant to the notification issued by the appointing authority.

( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the President of India in exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371-D of the constitution has issued the Recruitment order, 1975. "local area" defined in Para 6 of the said order so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case reads thus:local areas: (1) Each district shall be regarded as a local area - (i) for direct recruitment to posts in any local cadre under the State government comprising all or any of the posts in any department in that district belonging to the category of Junior Assistants or to any other catego