K K SHEENA Vs. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner applied for selection as an authorised ration dealer pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. By Ext.P2 order, the 1st respondent selected one Dasan, rejecting the petitioner's claim on the ground that the petitioner is a not a resident within the area of the ARD notified for selection of licensee. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal before the District Collector and the District Collector set aside the selection of Sri.Dasan, by Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 order was set aside by this Court in W.P.(C). No.4014/2007 filed by Sri.Dasan on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and the District Collector was directed to reconsider the appeal. After reconsideration also, the

(2.) ND respondent, by Ext.P5, held that selection of Sri.Dasan was irregular. But the petitioner's claim for appointment was also ignored and the vacancy was directed to be renotified. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 appeal before the 3rd respondent. Pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C).No. 30409/2007, Ext.P7 order has been passed by the 3rd respondent holding that the petitioner is ineligible for selection on the ground that she is not a resident of the panchayat. The petitioner's contention is that for the purpose of granting licence as an ARD, it is not necessary that the applicant should be a resident of that panchayat itself. It is submitted that it is sufficient if the petitioner is a resident of the locality in question, which according to the petitioner, the petitioner is. The petitioner relies on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Amose v. Selvaraj, 2009 (4) KLT 827, in support of that contention. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent supporting the impugned order. An additional affidavit has also been filed. The learned Government Pleader relies on the decision of Selvaraj v. State of Kerala, 2011 (2) KLT 416 (FB) to justify the impugned order.