JINKA CHINNA TIRUPELAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of cases can be dealt with together, as a common question has been raised by the writ petitioners. The State Government, with a view to ensure that essential commodities are made available to the cardholders for a reasonable and affordable price, has been supplying the essential commodities through a network of fair price shops established across the breadth and length of the State. It is stated that approximately 42,000 fair price shops have been established. The State Government also makes available ration cards for each family. Depending upon the income of the family, cardholders are identified, on a broad basis as below poverty line or above poverty line, as the case may be. The essential commodities become available to each family at specified quantities. As a regulatory measure, the prices of all these essential commodities are heavily subsidized. Thus, the social objective of ensuring that a large section of the society sustains itself, at the same time, for ensuring that the respective dealers, who undertake distribution of the essential commodities to the ration cardholders also survive, a small percentage of margin money is provided as their commission. For the purpose of ensuring this viability of the dealers in rural areas, a minimum of 500 cards are sought to be attached to each such ration shop, while in urban areas, a minimum of 400 to 450 such cards are attached to every dealer. Since the dealership of a fair price shop has almost acquired the status of decent employment/entrepreneurship at the grass root level, fairly large number of aspirants are getting interested in being selected and appointed as fair price shop dealers. The State Government also with a view to ensure that all social segments of 'the society make a decent progress, has set apart, at fixed percentages, dealerships to be filled in by candidates belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes, physically challenged category candidates and ex-servicemen. 30% of these dealerships are also sought to be filled in by women candidates.

(2.) In these set of circumstances, the State Government, for securing transparency and fairness in the matter of selection of dealers, has formulated certain guidelines as a policy measure to be followed by all the appointing authorities and announced the same through their G.O.Ms.No. 4, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 19.02.2011. The appointing authority of a fair price shop dealer is the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Sub-Collector or the District Supply Officer, as the case may be. Paragraph 2 of Annexure to G.O.Ms.No. 4, dated 19.02.2011 has furnished the detailed guidelines as to how to conduct the written test and interview as part of the selection procedure. It was now made obligatory for the appointing authority to conduct a written examination for 50 marks. There are also qualifying marks specified indicating that all candidates should secure 20 marks out of 50 for being declared to have qualified in the written examination. In effect, 40% of marks are now prescribed as the qualifying marks in the written test. For the purpose of conducting viva voce test/interview and to secure finalization of the dealership in quick time, a ratio of 1:5 is prescribed. Such of those candidates, who have secured 20 or more number of marks in the order of merit position, will be called for interview. This will be of help in case more number of candidates secured qualifying marks, so that the first five meritorious candidates alone will be called for the interview test. In case the total number of qualified candidates itself is less than five, all such qualified candidates would be subjected to the interview test. This far there is no problem. The selections are required to be finalized on the basis of the merit ranking and that merit will be assessed based upon the marks secured at the interview also. For the interview test, as many as 50 marks are set apart. This is where all the petitioners are making a grievance.

(3.) The learned counsel, who presented their respective view points, are uniform in their criticism that no doubt the appointing authorities are fairly responsible officers of the State's public administration, but nonetheless, awarding marks at the interview could lead to distortion of the merit ranking of the respective candidates. They submit that when a written test was already conducted to test the basic general knowledge of the candidates and also their knowledge as to the nature of the job requirements of a fair price shop dealer as well as the policy behind the distribution of essential commodities through the network of the fair price shops by the State Government, the interview test should not have carried equal number of marks. There will be record vouching for the performance of the respective candidates at the written test. Since 20 marks must be secured by the respective candidates at the written examination, while allocating 50 marks to the viva voce test, the good performance of the candidates at the written test can be very easily and effectively neutralized by awarding very liberal marks in favour of certain candidates while awarding relatively far lesser marks to some other candidates. This, according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, will impact the final merit position of the candidates. Therefore, they suggest that a reasonable number of marks alone should have been allocated for the interview component.