THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.23062 OF 2008 Dated: 16.11.2009 Between: B. Aruna Jyothi …. Petitioner And 1. The District Collector/Chairman, District Health & Family Welfare Society, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda And 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.23062 OF 2008 ORDER: The 1st respondent herein vide notification dated 1.9.2008 invited applications for recruitment to 2nd ANM posts (female) in 565 Primary Health Centres in Nalgonda District. The petitioner and the 4th respondent herein were among the applicants for Akaram Sub- Centre of Shali Gowraram Primary Health Centre (PHC). By proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 26.9.2008, the 4th respondent herein was selected as 2nd ANM (Auxiliary Nursing & Midwife) of Akaram Sub-Centre of Shali Gowraram PHC. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The material on record shows that the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.971, dated 25.7.2008 issued orders for appointment of 3756 Multi-Purpose Health Assistants (female)/Auxiliary Nursing & Midwives (MHA/ANM) in all the Districts in the newly created additional posts with a honorarium of Rs.4,000/- per month for a period of one year initially through Rogi Kalyan Samithis (Registered Societies). As per the guidelines issued for filling-up the said additional 2nd ANMs on outsourcing basis, the candidates should be residing in the same sub-centre area. If the candidates are not available in those sub-centre areas then they should be selected form the Mandal and if not available in that Mandal they will be selected in the nearest area in the district until the candidates belonging to that sub-centre area becomes available. It is not in dispute that Shali Gowrararm PHC contains 9 sub- centres including Akaram. The petitioner claims that she is a resident of Adloor Village which comes within the area of Akaram Sub- Centre. It is not in dispute that the 4th respondent is a resident of Akaram Village itself. It is also not in dispute that Rogi Kalyana Samithi headed by the District Collector as its Chairman has to scrutinize the applications received and prepare the selection list as per the community roster and that the selection shall be based on merit i.e., marks obtained in the qualifying examination. The material placed before this Court along with the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 shows that in the provisional Merit List prepared by Rogi Kalyana Samithi for Shali Gowraram PHC, the writ petitioner was shown to have obtained 742 marks and the 4th respondent obtained 717 marks. Having regard to the said undisputed fact, the petitioner claims that she is entitled to be selected as 2nd ANM of Akaram Sub-Centre as she has been awarded the highest marks by the Selection Committee. It is claimed that as a matter of fact her name was shown in the list of selected candidates prepared by the Selection Committee. It is alleged that subsequently her name was deleted from the list of selected candidates at the instance of the President of Mandal Praza Parishad of Shali Gowraram and thereafter the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 26.09.2008 by inserting the name of the 4th respondent as the selected candidate of Sub-Centre, Akaram. It is contended by the petitioner that the action of the 1st respondent in approving the selection of the 4th respondent and directing to issue appointment order to her is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the guidelines and consequently to set aside the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, it is explained that though the petitioner secured the highest marks in the selections, the President of Mandal Praza Parishad in his letter dated 19.09.2008 had pointed out that the petitioner, being a resident of Vallela Village, was a non-local for the purpose of Sub-Centre, Akaram. Accordingly, her name was substituted in the selection list with the name of the 4th respondent, since she was the second meritorious candidate, apart from being a resident of Akaram Village. Thus it is contended that the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent is in accordance with the guidelines. The 4th respondent also filed a counter-affidavit on the same lines stating that the writ petitioner is a resident of Vallela Village which comes within the area of Sub-Centre, Vallela and therefore she is not entitled for appointment as ANM of Sub-Centre, Akaram. As noticed above, Clause 3 of the Guidelines prescribed under G.O.Rt.No.971, dated 25.7.2008 made it clear that the candidates should be residing in the same sub-centre area. The said clause runs as under : “The candidates should be residing in the same sub-center area if candidates are not available in those sub-center areas then they should be selected from that Mandal, and if not available in the Mandal they will be selected from the nearest area in the district until the candidates belonging to that sub- center area become available.” In the circumstances, unless it is made out that the petitioner is residing in Akaram Sub-Centre area, she is not entitled for appointment as 2nd ANM of Akaram Sub-Centre. It is not in dispute that the 4th respondent, being a resident of Akaram Village, comes in the Akaram Sub-Centre area. However, so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, it is alleged by the respondents that she is a resident of Vallela Village and thus does not come within the area of Akaram Sub- Centre. It is to be noticed that there is a separate Sub-Centre for Vallela, which is also attached to Shali Gowraram PHC and one E. Indira was shown as the selected candidate for Sub-Centre, Vallela, having secured 793 marks. The allegation of the respondents that the writ petitioner comes under Sub-Centre, Vallela, has been denied by the petitioner and it is pleaded by her that she is a resident of Adloor Village which comes within the area of Akaram Sub-Centre. It is relevant to note that in the provisional merit list of selected candidates for 2nd ANM in PHC, Shali Gowraram, the petitioner was shown as a resident of Vallela/Adloor. Thus it appears that the official respondents were not precise with regard to the residence of the petitioner. If she is a resident of Vallela Village as alleged by the respondents, apparently she cannot be selected as per Clause 3 of the Guidelines for Sub-Centre, Akaram and consequently the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent cannot be found fault with. In case the petitioner’s claim that she is a resident of Adloor and that the said village comes within the area of Sub-Centre, Akaram, is established, then the petitioner, being the most meritorious candidate, shall be preferred over and above the 4th respondent. However, it is a pure disputed question of fact which cannot be enquired into and decided by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction particularly in the absence of any relevant material to substantiate the rival claims. Clause-6 of the Guidelines issued under G.O.Rt.No.971, dated 25.7.2008 runs as under : “After the PHC wise selection lists are prepared by the Rogi Kalyana Samithies, they have to be scrutinized and approved by the District Collector to check that rosters points/reservations and other guidelines have been followed. The appointment orders have to be issued by the Rogi Kalyana Samithies after the selection lists have been approved by the District Collector.” As could be seen, the selection list has to be prepared by Rogi Kalyana Samithi and thereafter the same has to be approved by the District Collector after verifying whether the roster points and other guidelines have been followed. It is true that in the instant case such approval was already granted by the District Collector for recruitment to the 2nd ANM of Sub- Centre, Akaram. However having regard to the specific claim made by the petitioner that she belongs to Adloor Village but not Vallela Village and since nothing could be placed before this Court by the respondents 1 to 3 to show that any opportunity was given to the petitioner to establish her case before rejecting her candidature for Sub-Centre, Akaram on the ground that she was a non-local, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The District Collector, Nalgonda shall conduct an enquiry as to the petitioner’s claim that she is residing in Akaram Sub-Centre area after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the petitioner and the 4th respondent to produce the relevant material to substantiate their rival claims and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expediently as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There shall also be a direction to the District Collector, Nalgonda to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to review the selection/appointment of 2nd ANM for Sub- Centre, Akaram within four weeks thereafter in case a finding is recorded in favour of the writ petitioner. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 16.11.2009 gbs Note:- CC in a week. (B/O) gbs