THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27083 of 2010 Dated:09.11.2010 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by the Principal Secretary to Government, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .. Petitioners And K.Subba Lakshmi and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27083 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed assailing the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.1844 of 2010, dated 08.04.2010. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The 2nd petitioner issued notification, dated 04.08.2008, inviting applications to fill up 643 vacancies of the Multi Purpose Health Assistant (Female)/Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (MPHA(F)/ANM) on outsourcing basis for a period of one year in Rural Health Centres in West Godavari District. Pursuant to the said notification, the 1st respondent, who is the resident of Yerraguntapalli Village, which comes under the territorial jurisdiction of Raghavapuram Primary Health Centre, applied for the said post. She passed the qualifying technical examination on compartmental basis, and obtained 698 marks, and her name stood at Serial No.27. The 2nd respondent also applied for the same and obtained 653 marks and her name stood at Serial No.42. While so, the petitioners - officials, issued appointment orders to the 2nd respondent as AMM at Yerraguntapalli Village, Sub Centre of Raghavapuram Primary Health Centre ignoring the name of the 1s t respondent. The 1st respondent aggrieved by the same, and accordingly, submitted a detailed representation, dated 15.02.2010, to the District Collector, West Govaradi District – 2nd petitioner herein, but in vain. Therefore, she filed O.A.No.1844 of 2010 before the Tribunal questioning the inaction on the part of the petitioners in not appointing her for the said post. The Tribunal through its order, dated 08.04.2010, disposed of the said O.A., directing the petitioners to examine the case of the 1st respondent, irrespective of the fact, whether she passed compartmentally; and if, she stands better than the candidates appointed in that particular selections, they shall review the appointment orders and appropriate orders shall be issued to the 1st respondent appointing her as MPHA(F)/ANM according to the rules within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners submits that the District Collector and Chairman of the selection committee stipulated that the candidates, who passed the qualifying examination in one sitting would be given preference in the selection process. In the present case, the 1st respondent passed the technical course on compartmental basis, and though her name stood at Serial No.27 with 698 marks, the 2nd respondent was given appointment orders as ANM since she passed the technical examination in one sitting. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader and perused the record. The 2nd petitioner issued notification dated 04.08.2008 for 643 posts of MPHA(F)/ANM, for a tenure of one year, to be distributed among the Primary Health Centres of West Godavari District, out of which, 15 posts have been allotted to Raghavapuram Primary Health Centre to look after the Community Centres. While the 1st respondent secured 698 marks and stood at Serial No.27, the 2nd respondent secured 653 marks and stood at Serial No.42. The plea of the petitioners is that the 1st respondent passed the qualifying technical examination on compartmental basis and the 2nd respondent passed the same in one sitting and therefore the 2nd respondent was selected for the said post. The dispute is as to whether the candidates passed the qualifying examination in one sitting. A perusal of the notification, it is clear that, no where it is stated that the candidates must have completed the qualifying examination in one sitting only. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J 09.11.2010 KH