THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3562 of 2010 ORDER: The Government of Andhra Pradesh sanctioned quite large number of posts described as ‘2nd A.N.Ms.’ for various Primary Health Centres and Sub-Centres in the State. For Shaligouraram Mandal, nine such posts were sanctioned. The petitioner, respondent No.4 and many others submitted applications for various Centres. The petitioner was selected for the Centre at Vallala. However, respondent No.4 challenged the same before the District Medical & Health Officer, respondent No.1 herein. Through order, dated 12.01.2009, respondent No.1 cancelled the appointment of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, she filed W.P.No.1981 of 2009. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 21.07.2009. However, it was directed that respondent No.4 shall be considered for being appointed against the post at Vallala Centre and that the petitioner be considered for the post at Chittaloor Centre in the same Mandal. Claiming to be in compliance with the order of this Court, respondent No.1 passed an order, dated 21.01.2010, taking the view that neither the petitioner nor respondent No.4 are eligible to be appointed as 2nd A.N.M. for any Centre and that the posts at the two Centres referred to above must be re-notified. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the order passed by respondent No.1 runs contrary to the directions issued by this Court. Respondent No.1 filed a detailed counter-affidavit explaining the circumstances that led to the passing of the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. This is the second round of litigation pertaining to the appointment to the posts of 2nd A.N.M. for the Centres referred to above. This Court upheld the orders passed by respondent No.1 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. The matter did not rest at that. Specific direction was issued to the effect that the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner for Vallala Centre is a measure, to pave the way for respondent No.1 to consider the case of respondent No.4 and that the petitioner, in turn, shall be considered for the post at Chittaloor Centre. In case there was any impediment in taking such steps, respondent No.1 ought to have informed this Court, when W.P.No.1981 of 2009 was disposed of. Having invited an order in the terms mentioned above, respondent No.1 was not at all justified in denying the appointments to the petitioner and respondent No.4. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is directed that respondent No.1 shall pass orders within four weeks from today considering the case of the petitioner for the post at Chittaloor Centre and that of respondent No.4 for the post at Vallala Centre without re-notifying the vacancies. In case any appointment is made against a post reserved for different categories, the next vacancy shall be made available for such category. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:07.09.2011 kdl