IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1672 of 2009 Between: B. Naga Venkata Renuka ... PETITIONER AND B. Janardhan Reddy, the District Collector/Chairman, District & Health & Family Welfare Society, Ananthapur District and another ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This contempt case has been filed complaining the disobedience of the order dated 19-01-2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No.37162 of 2008 in W.P.No.28350 of 2008. 2. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 02-12-2009. 3. The second respondent filed counter-affidavit. 4. Heard Sri M.R. Tagore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not followed the directions given in W.P.M.P.No.37162 of 2008 and therefore, they are liable to be punished under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act. 6. The learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health contends that the selection has been made as per the guidelines in force and since the petitioner has not come up to the mark, she has not been selected and instead the person who is more meritorious than her has been considered and selected accordingly. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner laid much emphasis that selection must be made sub-center wise and therefore, the candidates from that sub-center alone are to be considered. 8. The learned Government Pleader per contra contends that the Commissioner of Family Welfare, Hyderabad issued proceedings dated 10-10-2008 to make the appointments treating the PHC wise and not as sub-center wise and accordingly, recruitment has been taken up treating PHC as a unit. The learned Government Pleader drew my attention to the proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Family Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The text of the proceedings dated 10-10-2008 issued by the Commissioner of Family Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad reads as hereunder: “The attention of DM&Hos is invited to the references cited and the following clarifications are issued regarding the appointment of 2nd ANMs: 1. Appointments have to be made PHC wise as per the reservations issued by the DM&Hos. However, while allotting them to Sub-centers, the selected candidate belonging a particular sub-center area may be posted to that sub- center. 2. The community wise reservations have to be strinctly followed. The posts allotted to one community shall not be filled by other community. After the recruitment is over the DM&Hos may intimate the details of posts not filled due to non-availability of candidates belonging to a particular community for taking further necessary action. 3. The sub-centers where the 2nd ANM has been allotted to FDHS, will work with single MPHA(F). (This has got the approval of CFW)” 9. The proceedings issued by the Commissioner are explicit that PHC is the unit of appointment and not the sub-center as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Since selections have been made treating the PHC as a unit, there is no violation of the interim direction given by this court in writ petition. 10. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J February 23, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1672 of 2009 February 23, 2010