KOTA NAGAMANI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed for declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.Ms.No.4 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 19 -02 -2011 for selection of Fair Price Shop Dealer as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to set aside the same.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent has issued a notification in Rc.No.179/12 C, dated 09 -02 -2012 for appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No.15 of Salur Town, Vizianagaram District in which 50 marks for written test and 50 marks for oral interview are prescribed and the said notification was issued in accordance with the guidelines prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.4 Consumer Affairs Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 19 -02 -2011. In pursuance of the said notification, the petitioner applied for the same on 09 -02 -2012, attended the written test conducted on 26 -02 -2012 and secured 50 marks out of 50 and also attended oral interview on 27 -02 - 2012. It is stated that at the instance of local political leaders, the 4th respondent selected the 6th respondent as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.15, even though the 6th respondent is ineligible and disqualified to be appointed. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3 filed their counter contending that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of law of estoppel, as the petitioner participated in the selection process basing on the notification issued on 09 -02 -2012 and having participated in the process, the petitioner cannot challenge G.O.Ms.No.4, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 19 -02 -2011. It is stated that allocation of reservation has been maintained by following the rule of reservation as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 19 -02 -2011. It is also stated that the petitioner has secured 50 marks in the written test and got 25 marks only in the oral interview, whereas the 6th respondent secured 46 marks in the written test and got 35 marks in the oral interview and hence, since the 6th respondent secured highest marks than the petitioner, the 6th respondent was appointed as fair price shop dealer. It is also stated that interview also plays a vital role with regard to assessing suitability of the candidate and personal representation of the candidate applied for and he/she will be asked question on the functioning of the fair price shop and other general issues relating to Public Distribution System. It is further stated that the judgment of the Apex Court relied on by the petitioner has no application to the appointment of fair price shop dealer as fair price shop dealers are not Government employees or that a permanent appointment is not made to them and that they are agents of the Governments, who has to supply the essential commodities to the card holders as per the directions and instructions issued to them from time to time. It is further stated that the residence of the 6th respondent has also been verified with regard to the ration card etc., and it was found that she is residing in Ward No.27 in which the fair price shop is existing and that the 6th respondent has given an undertaking that she would quit the post of Anganwadi worker, if she is selected for the post of F.P. shop dealer and sought for vacating the interim order.