J LAKSHMINARAYANA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the Order of a learned single Judge in W.P.No.3172 of 1991, dated 8-3-1991 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein challenging the Order of the District Collector, Prakasam district, Ongole,dated 19-2-1991 in Dis.l0032/90settingaside,inexercise of his revisional jurisdiction, the appointment of the appellant as a fair price shop dealer for distribution of essential commodities.

(2.) The appellant herein was originally appointed on a temporary basis on 19-12-1988 todistribute essential commodities to card holders of Karamchedu village. On 26-2-1990, a notification was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongolecalling applications for appointment of fair price shop dealer on permanent basis. The appellant and others applied for the post and after interviewing the candidates on 18-7-1990, the Revenue Divisional Officer appointed the appellant herein. That action was challenged in an appeal by the 6th respondent - a rival candidate -on 16-8-1990. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority, viz., Joint Collector, on 1-11-1990. Aggrieved by that, a revision was filed to the Collector, which was allowed on 19-2-1991 on the ground that the appellant herein was convicted in a Criminal Case C.C.No.225 of 1978, dated 19-12-1980 and sentenced to six months imprisonment for an offence involving outraging the modesty of a woman, that the 6th respondent was financially more sound and that he was also better qualified from the point of view of educational qualification, in that he is a B.Com. degree holder as against the appellant, who studied upto 9th class.

(3.) Challenging this revisional Order, the appellant filed W.P.No.3172 of 1991 which, as already stated, was dismissed by the learned single Judge on the ground that one of the conditions to be fulfilled for eligibility to be appointed as an Agent for distributing essential commodities is that the person'should not have been subjected to the civil/ criminal action' and, therefore, the rejection of the claim of the appellant for dealership was proper and justified.