THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23278 of 2011 ORDER: Respondent No.1 initiated steps for appointment of two posts of A.N.Ms. for PHC at Chowluru. Several candidates applied for that post. One post was reserved in favour of B.C. candidates and other for S.C. candidates. The petitioner, respondent No.6 and four others applied under S.C. category. After conducting the interviews, the selection committee forwarded the list of the candidates arranging them in the order of merit. The name of the petitioner was shown at serial No.1 in the list of S.C. candidates. When nothing was forthcoming, the petitioner filed a writ petition and this Court passed an order directing respondent No.1 to pass necessary orders as to the selection. In compliance with the same, respondent No.1 passed a speaking order, dated 07.07.2011, directing the appointment of respondent No.6 and rejecting the case of the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was placed at Serial No.1 in the select list for the post of A.N.M. earmarked for S.C. candidates and respondent No.6 is shown at Serial No.6. The Rules prescribed by the Government direct that the candidates must be the residents of the village for which they are appointed as A.N.Ms. and if no candidate is available from the same village, a candidate who is resident within the area of operation of PHC must be selected. It is only when no candidate is available in the area of operation of PHC also that candidates residing outside the PHC can be considered. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a resident of Hindupur. It is only when a candidate who is resident within the area of operation of PHC at Chowluru is not available that the petitioner could have been chosen. Respondent No.1 observed in the impugned order that respondent No.6 is a resident within the area of operation of PHC. Therefore, no exception can be taken to it. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, directed that in case it emerges that the certificate of residence produced by respondent No.6 is not genuine, necessary steps shall be taken to ensure that appointments are made strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:18.08.2011 kdl