THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.12382 of 2010 ORDER: The Government sanctioned quite large number of posts of Auxiliary Nurse Mid Wifes (ANMs) to various Primary Health Centres (for short ‘the Centre’), in the State. The Centre at Makkapeta, Vatsvai Mandal of Krishna District, is one such. The District Medical and Health Officer, the 2nd respondent herein, issued a notification inviting applications. The petitioner, the 4th respondent and certain others submitted applications. Through proceedings, dated 20.05.2010, the 2nd respondent appointed the 4th respondent as ANM. The petitioner challenges the said orders. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health and learned counsel for the 4th respondent. The principal ground urged by the petitioner is that the 4th respondent is not a resident of Chityal Village within the area of operation of the Centre and her appointment is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government. She pleads that the 4th respondent was married and she has migrated to a different place and there was no justification for treating her as native of the same village. The guidelines issued by the Government provide that a candidate must be resident of the village for which the ANM is appointed and if the candidate from the same village is not available, the one, who is resident within the area of operation of the Centre, can be considered. Further, if no eligible candidate is available, within the area of operation of the Centre, selection can be made, of a candidate, who is a resident of the village outside the Centre, but within the same mandal. The petitioner and the 4th respondent claimed to be residents of Chityal Village within the area of operation of the Centre at Makkapeta. The criterion for selection is the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. There is no dispute that the 4th respondent secured higher marks and she was selected. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being W.P.No.6445 of 2010. The writ petition was disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to cause enquiry. After conducting such enquiry, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings, dated 20.05.2010. It is no doubt true that the 4th respondent, who was a native of Chityal Village was married to a person at Dubbakupalli of the same Mandal. She, however, has stated that within two months from the date of marriage disputes have arisen and she had to go back to the house of her parents. The further unfortunate incident, namely the death of her husband, was also pleaded. In proof of her continued residence, she has placed the necessary record. The writ petitioner figured as third in the merit list. The 2nd respondent took note of all these aspects and passed the impugned order appointing the 4th respondent as ANM. The matter was delayed almost by two years, on account of the obstruction caused by the petitioner from time to time. This Court does not find any illegality in the order of appointment of the 4th respondent. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:18.08.2011 GJ