AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
LISA GILL, CJ.
Prayer in this writ petition reads as under:
“(a)issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in treating the Petitioner as an Open Category (OC) candidate instead of a Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidate for admission into the 1st Year MBBS Course under the Competent Authority (Convenor) Quota for the academic year 2026-27, as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15(4) and 21 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice;
(b)consequently, issue a direction to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the candidature of the Petitioner under the ST category for admission into the 1st Year MBBS Course for the academic year 2026-27 in ongoing and all subsequent phases of counselling conducted under the Competent Authority (Convenor) Quota in the State of Andhra Pradesh…”
Brief facts of the matter as necessary for adjudication thereof and as pleaded are that - petitioner claims to belong to Lambada community, which is recognized and notified as a scheduled tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, as amended from time to time in both the States of Telangana as well as Andhra Pradesh. Community certificate dated 20.09.2021 was issued to petitioner by Tahsildar, Palvancha Mandal, Bhadradari Kothagudem District, Telangana.
It is pleaded that petitioner is a native / permanent resident of State of Telangana and that she pursued her education continuously from 8th standard to 12th standard at educational institutions in and around Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh for five consecutive academic years from 2021-22 to 2025-26. Therefore, she qualifies as a ‘local candidate’ for the Andhra University Area within the State of Andhra Pradesh as per Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974. It is further stated that petitioner aspiring to become a medical professional, took the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) 2026 held on 21.06.2026. She secured an All India Rank of 189928 and a Category Rank of 3679 under ST category.
Pursuant to notification issued by Medical Counseling Committee (MCC), Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, on 05.08.2026, petitioner applied for MBBS seat under All India Quota on 06.08.2026. MCC accepted her community certificate issued by the authority in State of Telangana in prescribed form and is considering her candidature under ST category for All India Quota seats. Petitioner also sought admission for first year MBBS course under the Competent Authority (Convener) Quota for academic year 2026-27 on 11.08.2026 in Andhra Pradesh State Quota, pursuant to notification dated 05.08.2026 issued by respondent No.3 - Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences.
Grievance raised by petitioner is that while accepting her status as a local candidate for Andhra University Area, her social status as a member of Scheduled Tribe is not being accepted while considering her as a local candidate, on the premise that petitioner's community certificate dated 20.09.2021 has been issued by competent authority in State of Telangana and not in State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that petitioner cannot be issued a community certificate from competent authority in Andhra Pradesh, because issuance of such certificate is contingent upon permanent residence of petitioner / applicant and her family, which in the present case happens to be in State of Telangana. Aggrieved therefrom, present writ petition has been filed.
Mr. P. Girish Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner vehemently argues that impugned action of respondents is extremely arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India . Denial of benefits of reservation to petitioner merely on the basis of geographical location of the authority issuing her certificate has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved and there is no rationale therein. It was further submitted that petitioner also applied for admission in State of Telangana, where her ST status is recognized, but on account of her schooling in Andhra Pradesh, she is not considered as a local candidate in Telangana, which reduces her chances of securing a seat there, while in State of Andhra Pradesh, though she is considered to be a local candidate, she would be considered in the general category i.e. OC category and not under ST category. There is no reason as to why said community certificate is not being accepted by respondents, as admittedly, said certificates had earlier been accepted for a number of years, but an objection is being raised now without any reason.
It was urged that Lambada community is duly notified as a Scheduled Tribe in State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, denial of benefit of reservation in such circumstances is totally unjustified. Moreover, once MCC, i.e. the National Level Counseling body, is affording benefit of ST reservation in All India Quota, there is no question of being denied this benefit while considering petitioner in the category of local candidate. It is thus prayed that this writ petition be allowed as prayed for.
Learned counsel for respondents have refuted arguments as raised by learned counsel for petitioner. It was argued that the admissions are being made strictly in accordance with applicable provisions of law. Petitioner is not entitled to benefit of reservation while being considered under the category of local candidate. She is undoubtedly being afforded the benefit of reservation in All India Quota and that she is getting due benefit of being considered as a local candidate though in OC category. There is no mandate whatsoever for considering her candidature under the local category as an ST candidate. It was reiterated that admissions are conducted strictly in accordance with terms and conditions mentioned in the Prospectus for the academic year 2026-27 as well as applicable regulations including G.O.Ms.Nos.80, 81 and 82 of Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 22.07.2025, and applicable for academic year 2026-27 as per G.O.Ms.Nos.84, 85 and 86 of Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 02.07.2026.
It was further submitted that it is categorically mentioned in Clause 8 of the Prospectus, that it is only a valid community certificate issued by the competent authority to candidates of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to the State of Andhra Pradesh, which shall be considered for extending the benefit of reservation. Dismissal of writ petition is, thus, sought.
We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file with their able assistance as well as have perused various Government Orders as had been referred to during the course of arguments. As there is no dispute regarding the factual aspects, calling for a reply on behalf of respondents was not insisted upon.
It is case of petitioner herself that she is a permanent resident of State of Telangana but had pursued her studies in State of Andhra Pradesh for the last 5 years, thus, entitling her to have benefit of being treated as a local candidate. Grievance raised in present petition is that while being considered in category of local candidate, she should be afforded further benefit of belonging to ST category as well at the time of considering her in the local candidate category.
‘Local Candidate’ is defined in the Andhra Pradesh Unaided Non-Minority Professional Institutions (Regulation of Admissions into Undergraduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules, 2007. “Reservation in favour of the local candidates” is also detailed in Clause 7 of Prospectus issued for academic year 2026-27 and the same is reproduced as under:
“(7) RESERVATION IN FAVOUR OF THE LOCAL CANDIDATES:
7.1Admission to 85% of the available seats shall be reserved in favour of the Local candidates in relation to the local area as provided in A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission) order, 1974 as given in Annexure-III of G.O. (P) No. 646, Edu. (W1) Department, dt.10-7-1979 and extracted provisions as per G.O.Ms.Nos.80, 81 & 82 of HM&FW (C1) Dept., dated.22-07-2025 and applicable for the Academic year 2026-27 as per G.O.Ms Nos.84, 85 & 86 of HM&FW (C1) Dept., dated.02-07-2026, as follows:
7.2 LOCAL AREA:
a. Andhra University Area: The part of the State comprising the erstwhile districts of Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam, East Godavari, West Godavari, Krishna, Guntur and Prakasam shall be regarded as the Local Area for the purpose of admission to the Andhra Pradesh Government / Un-aided Non-Minority / Minority Professional Institutions i.e., Undergraduate Medical and Dental Professional courses and to any other educational institutions (other than a state-wide university or statewide educational institution) which is subject to the control of the State Government and is situated in that part.
b. Sri Venkateswara University Area: The part of the State comprising the erstwhile districts of Anantapur, Kurnool, Chittoor, Cuddapah and Nellore shall be regarded as the Local Area for the purpose of admission to the Andhra Pradesh Government / Un-aided Non-Minority / Minority Professional Institutions i.e Undergraduate Medical and Dental Professional courses and to any other educational institutions (other than a statewide university or state-wide educational institution) which is subject to the control of the State Government and is situated in that part.
7.3 LOCAL CANDIDATES:
The Local Candidate means:
(A)A candidate for admission shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to a local area. –
(a)If he/she has studied in educational Institution or educational Institutions in such local area for a period of not less than four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he/she appeared or as the case may be, first appeared in the relevant qualifying examination, or
(b)Where, during the whole or any part of the four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he/she appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination, he/she has not studied in any educational Institutions, if he/she has resided in that local area for a period of not less than four years immediately preceding the date of commencement of the relevant qualifying examination in which he/she appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared.
(B)A candidate for admission to the Course who is not regarded as local candidate under clause (A) in relation to any local area shall -
(a)If he/she 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/she appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination be regarded as a local candidate in relation to, -
(i)Such local area where he/she has studied for the maximum period out of said period of seven years, or
(ii)Where the period of his/her study in two local areas are equal, such local area, where he/she has studied last in such equal period, or
(b)If, during the whole or any part of seven consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he/she appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination, he/she has not studied in the educational Institutions in any local area, but has resided in the State during the whole of the said period of seven years, be regarded as a local candidate in relation to, -
(i)Such local area where he/she has resided for the maximum period out of the said period of seven years, or
(ii)Where the periods of his/her residence in two local areas are equal, such local area where he/she has resided last in such equal periods.
(C)Local Status Certificate issued through online mode by MRO for claiming as Andhra Pradesh local as per G.O.Ms.No.132 & 133, GA (SPF&MC) Department, dt.13.6.2016 and circular Memo.No.4l36/SPF&MC/2015-5, Dated: 08.08.2016 & Memo.No.4136/SPF&MC/2015-9 dated 03.09.2016 and its amendments issued by the General Administration Dept., Govt. of Andhra Pradesh.
7.2 (sic 7.4) The following categories of candidates are eligible to
apply for admission under 15% of the available ANDHRA PRADESH UNRESERVED Seats:
i.All the candidates eligible to be declared as local candidates of two local areas of State of Andhra Pradesh.
ii.Candidates who have resided in the State of Andhra Pradesh for a total period of 10 years excluding periods of study outside the State or either of whose parents have resided in the State of Andhra Pradesh for a total period of ten years excluding period of employment outside the State.
iii.Candidates who are children of parents who are in employment of the State of Andhra Pradesh or Central Government, Public Sector Corporations, Local Bodies, Universities and Educational Institutions other similar quasi Public Institutions within the State of Andhra Pradesh.
iv.Candidates who are spouses of those in the employment of the State of Andhra Pradesh or Central Government, public sector corporations, Local Bodies, Universities and Educational Institutions recognized by the Government or University or other Competent Authority and similar quasi Government Institutions within the State of Andhra Pradesh.
N.B.: The Scanned copies of relevant certificates must be uploaded for verification along with online application. In respect of residence certificate, the certificate should be obtained from the Revenue authorities clearly specifying the years.”
Clause 8 of the Prospectus deals with provisions regarding reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and reads as under:
“(8). RESERVATIONS:
A. Reservation for Scheduled Castes (S.C.) and Scheduled Tribes (S.T.):
i)Out of the seats available for admission under Competent Authority Quota, the following percentage of seats shall be reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in each local area.
Community Percentage of reservation applicable Issuing Authority (Integrated Community Certificate with Barcode) SC Group-1 = 1 % Group-2 = 6.5 % Group-3 = 7.5% Tahsildar / Mandal Revenue Officer/ Competent Authority, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh ST 6% NOTE: Valid Community Certificate in respect of sub-
castes of Schedules Castes containing specific SC Group -1/ SC Group -2 / SC Group-3 issued as per G.O.07 will only be considered for admission.
ii) In the event that if any seats reserved for S.T. not being filled up, they will be open to the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and vice-versa.
iii) In the event of the candidates from the SC and ST are not being available, these seats shall be allotted to the candidates under open competition.
iv) Candidates of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to the State of Andhra Pradesh only which are specified by the Govt. of A.P. from time to time shall be considered.
B. RESERVATION FOR BACKWARD CLASSES:
i)29% of the available seats for admission in each local area Under Dr. NTR UHS for MBBS, BDS courses shall be reserved for candidates belonging to Backward Classes as follows:-
Community Percentage of reservation applicable Issuing Authority (Integrated Community Certificate with Barcode) BC-A 7% Tahsildar / Mandal Revenue Officer/ Competent Authority, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh BC-B 10% BC-C 1% BC-D 7% BC-E* 4% ii) As per the G.O.Ms.No.1793, Education, dt.23.09.1970 and G.O.Ms.No.23, Backward Classes Welfare (C2), dt.07-07-2007 and G.O.Ms.No.231, Health Medical and Family Welfare (E1) Dept., dated 11-07-2007. (* Subject to further orders of the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh / High Court.)
iii) If qualified candidates belonging to Backward Class of particular group are not available, the leftover seats can be adjusted for the candidates of next group. If qualified candidates belonging to Backward Classes are not available to fill up the 29% seats reserved for them, the leftover seats shall be treated as Open Competition seats and shall be filled up with candidates by merit.
NOTE:- The Social Reservation provided for BCs, SCs, ST’s in the ratio of 29%, 15% and 6% respectively shall be vertical reservation.
C. RESERVATION FOR ECONOMICALLY WEAKER SECTIONS (EWS):
The reservation of 10% in favour of Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidates who are not covered under existing scheme of reservation for SC/ST & BCs will be made as per the procedure/ guidelines issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
EWS Quota will be implemented in the Government Medical Colleges where additional seats were permitted by NMC / Govt. of India for the purpose.
The persons seeking the benefit of reservation under EWS category shall obtain and upload the Income & Asset Certificate for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) valid for the year 2026-27 issued on or after 01.04.2026 by the Tahsildar, Govt of Andhra Pradesh.
NOTE: Keeping in view of exhaust of 10 years common admission process by 01-06-2024 as per the A.P Reorganization Act, 2014, the EWS certificates issued by Govt. of A.P will only be considered for admissions.
As per the Prospectus for academic year 2026-27, it is further clearly mentioned that it is only the caste certificates issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh, which shall be considered for admissions. Clause 10, along with specific note thereto, reads as under:
“(10) SOCIAL STATUS CERTIFICATE:
10.1The candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes have to upload a latest Certificate in the Prescribed Proforma, with barcode, in support of their claims. The social status of Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes candidates shall be scrutinized in terms of G.O.M.s.No.58, SW (J) Dept. Dated 12-05-1997 and as amended from time to time.
10.2The candidates are informed that they will not be considered for the caste claimed by them unless they upload the latest Integrated Community Certificate with Barcode, prescribed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and issued by the Revenue Authorities (Vide G.O.Ms.No.58, Social Welfare (J) Department, dated. 12-05-1997).
10.3In case of Minority candidates, the Minority certificate issued by District Minorities Welfare Officer, Government of AP to be furnished in support of their claim.
NOTE: Keeping in view of exhaust of 10 years common admission process by 01-06-2024 as per A.P Reorganization Act, 2014, the Caste certificates issued by Govt. of A.P will only be considered for admissions (Govt. Memo No.2832690/C1/2026, Dt:21-07-2026 of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh.
In the given facts and circumstances, there is no ground whatsoever to cause interference in present matter in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Action taken by respondents is in complete conformity and in consonance with the applicable rules, regulations, terms and conditions mentioned in Prospectus.
Reliance by learned counsel for petitioner on judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Puducherry Scheduled Caste People Welfare Association Vs. Chief Secretary to Government, Union Territory of Pondicherry and others, (2014) 9 SCC 236 is of no avail, in view of judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court (Larger Bench) in Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board and others, (2018) 10 SCC 312; Ranjana Kumari Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (2019) 15 SCC 664, wherein reference has been duly made to earlier judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others, (1990) 3 SCC 130.
In the case of Puducherry Scheduled Caste People Welfare Association (supra), it was found that Government Orders restricting benefit of reservation only to persons of Scheduled Caste of said Union Territory opposed to the Presidential Order, which, it was stated, did not speak of origins of “the Union Territory of Puducherry”, but only of “resident”. It was thus held that by way of an executive order there cannot be any change in the Presidential Order.
Apart from the fact that this is not the position in the present case, there was no discussion of the previous judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra), which has been rendered by a Bench of Five Judges. Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao still holds the field and has been quoted with approval in subsequent judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court itself including the case of Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board and others, which is also a judgment rendered by a Bench of Five Hon’ble Judges.
In the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that a Member of a disadvantaged group on voluntary migration is not entitled to avail of benefits or privileges intended for disadvantaged groups in a new place. In the said case, petitioner, who was seeking admission to a medical college in the State of his migration on the basis of his Scheduled Tribe status in original State, was held not entitled to this benefit. It was held as under:
“10.It has, however, to be borne in mind that a man does not cease to belong to his caste by migration to a better or more socially free and liberal atmosphere. But if sufficiently long time is spent in socially advanced area then the inhibitions and handicaps suffered by belonging to a socially disadvantageous community do not continue and the natural talent of a man or a woman or a boy or girl gets full scope to flourish. These, however, are problems of social adjustment i.e. how far protection has to be given to a certain segment of socially disadvantaged community and for how long to become equal with others is a matter of delicate social adjustment. These must be so balanced in the mosaic of the country's integrity that no section or community should cause detriment or discontentment to other community or part of community or section. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonging to a particular area of the country must be given protection so long as and to the extent they are entitled in order to become equal with others. But equally those who go to other areas should also ensure that they make way for the disadvantaged and disabled of that part of the community who suffer from inabilities in those areas. In other words, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes say of Andhra Pradesh do require necessary protection as balanced between other communities. But equally the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes say of Maharashtra in the instant case, do require protection in the State of Maharashtra, which will have to be in balance to other communities. This must be the basic approach to the problem. If one bears this basic approach in mind, then the determination of the controversy in the instant case does not become difficult….”
In the case of Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board and others, while referring to judgment in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs in State of Maharastra Vs. Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 244, Five Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court held as under:
“32.In Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao, the Constitution Bench observed that the expression “in relation to that State” must be read meaningfully and harmoniously. It was observed that if a member of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes gets the benefit of that status throughout the territory of India, the expression “in relation to that State” would become nugatory. If the special privileges or the rights granted to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in a particular State are to be made available in all the States and if such benefits are to be carried from State ‘A’ to State ‘B’ on migration, the mandate of Articles 341/342 would get compromised. Such a consequence must be avoided for it is a fundamental rule of interpretation, be it of a statutory enactment or of the Constitution, that wherever and whenever there is a conflict between two provisions, the same should be so interpreted as to give effect to both. “… Nothing is surplus in a Constitution and no part should be made nugatory…”
33.The issue has to be viewed from another perspective. If a member of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe of Andhra Pradesh who had migrated to Maharashtra is to be given the benefit of reservation it will amount to depriving a member of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe of Maharashtra by reducing the reservation earmarked for them. It is in this context, in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao, that the Constitution Bench observed as under:
“14.… But having regard to the purpose, it appears to us that harmonious construction enjoins that we should give to each expression — “in relation to that State” or “for the purposes of this Constitution” — its full meaning and give their full effect. This must be so construed that one must not negate the other. The construction that reservation made in respect of the Scheduled Caste or Tribe of that State is so determined to be entitled to all the privileges and rights under the Constitution in that State would be the most correct way of reading, consistent with the language, purpose and scheme of the Constitution. Otherwise, one has to bear in mind that if reservations to those who are treated as Scheduled Caste or Tribe in Andhra Pradesh are also given to a boy or a girl who migrates and gets deducted (sic inducted) in the State of Maharashtra or other States where that caste or tribe is not treated as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe then either reservation will have the effect of depriving the percentage to the member of that caste or tribe in Maharashtra who would be entitled to protection or it would denude the other non-Scheduled Castes or non-Scheduled Tribes in Maharashtra to the proportion that they are entitled to. This cannot be logical or correct result designed by the Constitution.”
34.Unhesitatingly, therefore, it can be said that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one State cannot be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste person in relation to any other State to which he migrates for the purpose of employment or education. The expressions “in relation to that State or Union Territory” and “for the purpose of this Constitution” used in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India would mean that the benefits of reservation provided for by the Constitution would stand confined to the geographical territories of a State/Union Territory in respect of which the lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes have been notified by the Presidential Orders issued from time to time. A person notified as a Scheduled Caste in State ‘A’ cannot claim the same status in another State on the basis that he is declared as a Scheduled Caste in State ‘A’.”
The view expressed in S. Pushpa Vs. Sivachanmugavelu, (2005) 3 SCC 1, wherein it was held that “when members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes migrate to another State, they do not carry with them the special privileges and advantages”, was not applicable in case of Union Territories in India, was held to be an incorrect view.
In the case of Ranjana Kumari Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, Three Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that merely because the same caste is recognized as Scheduled Caste in migrant State, the migrant cannot be recognized as Scheduled Caste of migrant State. Petitioner/appellant therein belonging to a particular Scheduled Caste of State of Punjab married a person belonging to a same caste of State of Uttarakhand and migrated to said State. The State of Uttarakhand issued a certificate to appellant on the basis of which she claimed to be a Scheduled Caste of the State of Uttarakhand. This claim was negated by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. In the present case, petitioner is admittedly a resident of Telangana; her community certificate has been issued by competent authority in the State of Telangana; she is treated as a local candidate in State of Andhra Pradesh by virtue of her pursuing her studying in Andhra Pradesh for five consecutive years from 2021-22 to 2025-26. Admittedly, she is afforded the benefit of being local candidate in Andhra Pradesh and ST category in the All India Quota. In the given factual matrix, the applicable provisions and position of law as discussed in foregoing paras, action of respondent Nos.2 & 3 is absolutely justified and is unimpeachable and petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of reservation under ST category in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Argument that the community to which the petitioner belongs is also recognized to be a Scheduled Tribe in Andhra Pradesh entitles her to such reservation and the same cannot be denied only on the ground of certificate in this regard by the authority in Telangana, is clearly devoid of any merit in the given facts and circumstances, hence rejected.
Thus, keeping in view the factual position, constitutional mandate and various judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court as referred to above, we do not find any ground to cause interference in this matter. No other argument was addressed.
Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
