THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30368 of 2010 ORDER: The District Medical and Health Officer, Ananthapur, respondent No.1 herein, issued a notification in April, 2010 inviting applications for the posts of 2 ANM in various hospitals and primary health centres in Ananthapur District. The petitioner submitted her application for one such post. Since the residents of the villages within the limits of the primary health centre are to be preferred as per the guidelines, the petitioner approached the Tahsildar, N.P. Kunta Mandal, respondent No.4 herein, to certify her residence as well as nativity. After calling for a report from the Mandal Revenue Inspector, respondent No.4 issued proceedings, dated 12.05.2010, certifying that the petitioner is a native as well as resident of Mundlavaripalli Village, H/o. Dhanyanicheruvu. The application was processed by respondent No.1. However, the petitioner was not selected and respondent No.5 is said to have been selected by treating her as a resident of the same place. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the respondents. The matter was adjourned twice to enable the learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health to obtain instructions. On 14.12.2010, the learned Government Pleader has placed before this Court, the proceedings, dated 27.07.2010, issued by respondent No.4 to the effect that the petitioner is not a resident of Mundlavaripalli Village. This Court noted the inherent inconsistency between the proceedings, dated 12.05.2010 and 27.07.2010 and summoned respondent No.4 together with the record. Today, the learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue have advanced arguments with reference to the record. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner submitted her application for the post of 2 ANM. Though the assessment of merit is to be undertaken with reference to the marks in M.P.H.A. Course (female) and the previous experience, being the resident of a village within the limits of primary health centre becomes an important factor. It is in this context that the petitioner approached respondent No.4 to certify her residence. After calling for a report from the Mandal Revenue Inspector, respondent No.1 issued proceedings certifying the petitioner to be the native as well as resident of Mundlavaripalli Village. He has referred to her place of birth, the place of education, the nativity of her in-laws, the place at which they worked for livelihood and ultimately, the actual place of residence. However, in the name of further verifying the matter on a reference made by respondent No.1, respondent No.4 has completely changed his stand. It is not necessary that respondent No.4 must be consistent if the record warrants. However, except that a statement of the petitioner was recorded on 01.07.2010, no other factor is mentioned to take a complete different stand in the proceedings, dated 27.07.2010. It is rather surprising and shocking that respondent No.4 has gone to the extent of attributing acts of coercion and extortion to the petitioner and her family members. The acts and omissions on the part of respondent No.4 and the Mandal Revenue Inspector concerned are reprehensible. They have virtually played with the lives of the poor women candidates aspiring for the posts of 2 ANM Though a serious action is warranted against them, this Court takes a lenient view by making them to pay costs to the petitioner incurred for pursuing this unwarranted litigation. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings, dated 27.07.2010, issued by respondent No.4 are set aside. It shall be open to him to pass fresh orders strictly in accordance with law and without any deviation. The report, dated 12.05.2010, shall be taken into account, unless any part of it is found to be factually incorrect. Respondent No.4 on the one hand and the Mandal Revenue Inspector on the other shall pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. Respondent No.1 shall take further steps depending upon the certification as to the residence and the nativity of the petitioner as may be certified by respondent No.4 as indicated in this order. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 22.12.2010. Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl