APHC010147692012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 39181/2012 Between: 1. P.PUSHPALATHA, D/O KASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS UNEMPLOYEE, R/O CHULAGUDILAPADU, GURAJALA HANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GOVERNMENT OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, 2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR. 3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. 5. B THIRUPATHAMMA, W/O SUBBARAO, A.N.M., . R/O CHULAGUDILAPADU, GURAJALA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondent authorities in appointing the 5th respondent as A.N.M. on outsourcing basis, 2 though the petitioner herein is placed at SI.No.10 in the merit list i.e., above the 5th respondent, as being illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner herein as A.N.M., basing on the merit list issued by the respondent authorities. IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 49749 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of A.N.M./M.P.H.A. (F) in any of the existing vacancies notified vide Rc.No. 2592/E3/2008 dt., 26.8.2008, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K JOSEPH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MED HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in appointing the 5th respondent on an outsourcing basis as A.N.M. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner had also submitted an application for appointment as A.N.M in pursuance of the notification dated 26.08.2008. It is further submitted that the 5th respondent secured 63 marks in the overall merit list, whereas the petitioner secured 71 marks. However, the 5th respondent was appointed as A.N.M on an outsourcing basis for Madugula. It is submitted that even as per the application submitted, the petitioner ought to have been considered for appointment at Madugula in place of the 5th respondent if respondent Nos.1 to 4 had followed the merit list. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the petitioner had submitted an application seeking appointment as A.N.M for Madugula Sub-Centre and that respondent Nos.1 to 4 have appointed one G. Aruna, who secured 81 marks, as 2nd A.N.M for Madugula Sub-Centre. The petitioner secured 71 marks and, therefore, on merit, respondent Nos.1 to 4 have appointed Smt. G. Aruna. 4. It is also stated in the counter that the 5th respondent had applied for Charlagudipadu Sub-Centre and that only one application was received for the said Sub-Centre. As such, the 5th respondent was selected as A.N.M for Charlagudipadu. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner could not be 4 considered for appointment at Madugula as she was placed below in merit when compared with the candidate selected as A.N.M. Insofar as the case of the petitioner for appointment at Charlagudipadu is concerned, the petitioner did not opt for the said centre and the respondents have considered the 5th respondent as no other application was received. 5. It is further submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the services of the 5th respondent were subsequently regularized and that, at present, she is working at Dachepally, Palnadu District, as A.N.M Grade-III. 6. Considering the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader and the counter filed, the petitioner’s case appears to have been appropriately considered and, on merits, she was not selected. It is also evident from the annexures that the petitioner had earlier filed O.A. No.11176 of 2008, and the said O.A. was dismissed as not maintainable on the point of jurisdiction, as the proposed recruitment was on outsourcing basis. 7. On these considerations, this Court is not inclined to interfere. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 16.03.2026 PNS