The Central Government implemented the 32nd Constitutional Amendment to formalize the Six Point Plan, with the amendment successfully passing in Parliament. Garnering 511 votes in favor and 8 against in the Lok Sabha, the amendment modified Article 371(1) and introduced Articles 371(D) and 371(E), along with changes to the 7th Schedule, 1st List, and 63rd item. On May 3, 1974, the President of India ratified this bill, which came into effect on July 1, 1974. This amendment aimed to ensure special privileges for the people of Telangana and to equalize opportunities in education and government employment across Telangana and Andhra.

Key Provisions and Implementations Following the Amendment:

• The amendment established an executive tribunal to handle employment services and grievances.
• It facilitated the creation of a Central University to boost educational opportunities under the stipulated conditions of the act.

Article 371-D, Presidential Orders, and Subsequent Regulations: In May 1974, the “32nd Constitutional Amendment” was ratified to institutionalize the Six Point Formula. This amendment was assented to by the President on May 3, 1974, and enforced from July 1, 1974. It introduced new constitutional articles, 371(D) and 371(E), which provided the legal framework for establishing a central university in Andhra Pradesh and addressing local employment issues through specific legislative measures.

Details from the Presidential Order and Its Implications:

• Presidential Order Details: Issued as GSR – 524 (E) on October 18, 1975, it was titled “The Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres & Regularization of Direct Recruitment) Order – 1975.”
• Government Order (GO 610): On October 20, 1975, G.O. No: 674 outlined the recruitment policies to be followed, which emphasized localized employment strategies.

Framework for Local Employment Based on the Presidential Order:

Zonal Classification: Jobs were organized into district, zonal, and multi-zonal cadres, each with specific local recruitment criteria.

Local Candidate Prioritization: The residency requirement for qualifying as a local candidate was reduced to four years to facilitate quicker integration into regional employment.

Reserved Posts for Local Candidates:

80% of district-level cadre posts,

70% of zonal-level non-gazetted posts,

60% of zonal-level gazetted posts, were reserved for local candidates.

Transfer Policies: Allowed for transfers within and between designated zones and institutions, with Hyderabad designated as a ‘free zone’ for police recruitment, meaning any state resident could serve in this capacity.

Challenges and Controversies Arising from Implementation: Despite these frameworks, the application of these rules often led to increased regional disparities. Complaints included the misuse of the ‘free zone’ status of Hyderabad, inappropriate conversions of job cadres that favored non-local candidates, and numerous instances of illegal transfers and appointments. These issues highlighted significant challenges in achieving the intended fairness and regional equity, leading to ongoing disputes and dissatisfaction among the local populations.

Adverse Impacts of the Six-Point Formula on Telangana (Presidential Order):

Abolition of Mulki Rules:

• The residency requirement to qualify as a local in Telangana was reduced from 15 years to just 4 years. Under the 9th Paragraph of Article 371, individuals from Andhra who had previously migrated under questionable circumstances were now officially recognized as locals.

Dissolution of the Telangana Regional Committee:

• Established in 1958, the Telangana Regional Committee was dissolved, leaving the region without its dedicated safeguard for land protection. A regional development board was created as a replacement but proved ineffective.

Elimination of Separate Budget Provisions:

• The distinct budgetary allocations for Andhra and Telangana were also removed, further diluting Telangana’s administrative autonomy.

Violations of Presidential Orders:

• According to the Presidential Orders, all job vacancies, barring those reserved for locals, should have been filled through open competition. However, in practice, many of these positions were filled by non-locals.
• Certain district-level cadres were reclassified as zonal-level cadres, reducing the reservation quota for locals from 80% to 70% and improperly increasing the quota for non-locals.
• Non-gazetted roles were elevated to zonal gazetted positions, decreasing the local reservation from 70% to 60%.
• Recruitment processes favored reserved quotas over open competition, prejudicing local candidates who would otherwise qualify on merit.
• A significant number of individuals from the Andhra region secured jobs in Telangana by presenting fraudulent certificates, thus usurping opportunities meant for local candidates.
• Extensive injustices were reported within significant administrative bodies such as the State Secretariat and other statewide offices, where Telangana candidates were significantly underrepresented.
• Claims were made that universities, boards, and institutions under government supervision and receiving government funding were exempt from Presidential orders, which disproportionately affected the Telangana region.
• A vast majority of transfers (approximately 99%) involved moving staff from other regions into Telangana, exacerbating regional disparities.
• The provision under the 14(F) of the Presidential Orders designated Hyderabad as a free zone for police recruitments, which was exploited to convert it into a free zone for multiple other governmental departments as well.
• This misuse allowed for significant and often illegal transfers and deputations of individuals from other regions into key departments and educational institutions in Hyderabad, leading to widespread discontent and disillusionment among the youth and employees of Telangana.

Following the Jai Andhra movement in 1973, the people of Telangana were left deprived of many benefits previously secured during the 1969 Telangana movement, worsening the regional inequities.