Dismissed

Kondamala Rama Devi v. The Govt of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC18 Aug 2011WP/12382/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the appointment of a 4th respondent as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife, alleging non-compliance with residency guidelines. The court examined the selection criteria based on marks and the specific circumstances of the 4th respondent's residence post-marriage. The petition was dismissed as no illegality was found in the appointment order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Kondamala Rama Devi Vs The Govt of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.12382 of 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The Government sanctioned quite large number of posts of Auxiliary Nurse Mid Wifes (ANMs) to various Primary Health Centres (for short ‘the Centre’), in the State. The Centre at Makkapeta, Vatsvai Mandal of Krishna District, is one such. The District Medical and Health Officer, the 2^nd respondent herein, issued a notification inviting applications. The petitioner, the 4^th respondent and certain others submitted applications. Through proceedings, dated 20.05.2010, the 2^nd respondent appointed the 4^th respondent as ANM. The petitioner challenges the said orders.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health and learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

¶5

The principal ground urged by the petitioner is that the

¶6

4^th respondent is not a resident of Chityal Village within the area of operation of the Centre and her appointment is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government. She pleads that the 4^th respondent was married and she has migrated to a different place and there was no justification for treating her as native of the same village.

¶7

The guidelines issued by the Government provide that a

¶8

candidate must be resident of the village for which the ANM is appointed and if the candidate from the same village is not available, the one, who is resident within the area of operation of the Centre, can be considered. Further,

¶9

if no eligible candidate is available, within the area of operation of the Centre, selection can be made, of a candidate, who is a resident of the village outside the Centre, but within the same mandal. The petitioner and the 4^th respondent claimed to be residents of Chityal Village within the area of operation of the Centre at Makkapeta. The criterion for selection is the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. There is no dispute that the 4^th respondent secured higher marks and she was selected.

¶10

On an earlier occasion, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being W.P.No.6445 of 2010. The writ petition was disposed of, directing the 2^nd respondent to cause enquiry. After conducting such enquiry, the 2^nd respondent issued proceedings, dated 20.05.2010. It is no doubt true that the 4^th respondent, who was a native of Chityal Village was married to a person at Dubbakupalli of the same Mandal. She, however, has stated that within two months from the date of marriage disputes have arisen and she had to go back to the house of her parents. The further unfortunate incident, namely the death of her husband, was also pleaded. In proof of her continued residence, she has placed the necessary record. The writ petitioner

¶11

figured as third in the merit list. The 2^nd respondent took note of all these aspects and passed the impugned order appointing the 4^th respondent as ANM. The matter was delayed almost by two years, on account of the obstruction caused by the petitioner from time to time. This Court does not find any illegality in the order of appointment of the 4^th respondent.

¶12

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

_______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:18.08.2011 GJ

Kondamala Rama Devi v. The Govt of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kondamala Rama Devi v. The Govt of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.S. Reddy Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

Jai Narain Singh Vs The Government of India

Yadla Ravi Varma Vs The State of A.P

Kinjarapu Rajeswari Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its

G.P. Chennaiah Vs The Secretary

Kopparapu Seetharamanjaneyulu (Died) Vs Male Krishna Reddy (died)