V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. The petitioner, who participated in the selection for admission to a Super Speciality Course in Medicine, namely, M.Ch. (Surgical Oncology) and who secured the first rank, has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in treating all the three seats available for admission only to local candidates and not throwing open even one of those seats for un-reserved categories.

2. Heard Mr. Chintala Sumon Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned standing counsel for Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, appearing for the 1st respondent, and the learned Additional Advocate General representing Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent University.

3. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is qualified to seek admission to a Super Speciality Course, which is described in common parlance as a second post-graduate course, in M.Ch. (Surgical Oncology). There is also no dispute about the fact that the petitioner secured the first rank in the entrance examination.

4. As per the seat matrix released by the 1st respondent University, which was responsible for conducting the common entrance test, for admission to all Super Speciality Medical Courses, there was only one seat in M.Ch. (Surgical Oncology) in the combined State of Andhra Pradesh. That seat was available in Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad. But, after the bifurcation of the State with effect from 02.06.2014, the State of Telangana increased the seats available in M.Ch. (Surgical Oncology) to three. In other words, the infrastructure for two additional seats, were provided by the state of Telangana, and the Medical Council of India has also permitted the increase in the number of seats from one to three, insofar as M.Ch. (Surgical Oncology) is concerned.

5. After the conduct of the common entrance examination by the 1st respondent University, the 2nd respondent University appears to have released a selection chart for admission to all M.Ch. courses in the State of Telangana for the academic year 2016-2017. As per the said selection chart, the 2nd respondent University has divided the three seats available in M.Ch. (Surgical Oncology) into two categories. These two categories are (i) one seat that was in existence before the bifurcation of the State as a non-State-wide seat, and (ii) two seats allegedly created as State-wide seats after the bifurcation of the State. On the basis of the said logic, the 2nd respondent University has allotted all the three seats, to the local area of Osmania University. The consequence is that the petitioner, who is not treated as a local candidate in Osmania University area, will not get admission to M.Ch. (Surgical Oncology), despite having secured the first rank in the entrance examination. Therefore, questioning the action of the 2nd respondent University, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. In order to test the correctness of the segregation of the three seats by the 2nd respondent University into non-State-wide seats and State-wide seats, it is necessary to take note of the relevant provisions of the Presidential Order and the relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014.

7. In exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371-D of the Constitution, the President issued an order known as Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974. There are certain definitions provided in Paragraph-2 of the Presidential Order. The expression available seats is defined in Paragraph-2(a) of the Presidential Order, to mean, in relation to any course of study, the number of seats provided in that course for admission at any time after excluding those reserved for candidates from outside the State. The expression Sta