M CH OBULA REDDY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of appointment of the petitioner as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Chowtupalli village of Proddutur Mandal is under challenge in the writ petition.

(2.) The facts are as under: In pursuance of the notification issued in April, 1990 applications were called for the appointment of F.P.Shop dealer to the shop at Chowtupalli village. The petitioner and the fourth respondent, among others, had applied. The third respondent, considering the applications of all the applicants, appointed the petitioner by order dt. 12-3-1991. Aggrieved by the said order, the fourth respondent filed appeal before the Joint Collector (R-2 herein) and the Joint Collector by order dated 22-3-1993 allowed the appeal setting aside the order of appointment on several grounds. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the first respondent challenging the order of the Joint Collector and by an order dated 25-10-1997 the revision was rejected confirming the order under appeal. The petitioner now challenges the validity of the order of the first respondent-District Collector.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is more qualified than the fourth respondent and the finding that the petitioner was equally qualified is erroneous and opposed to the record. It is further contended that when once the petitioner is more qualified the requirement of residence within the area of the shop/village does not assume any importance. Hence, the order of the first respondent in setting aside the order of appointment of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner was not the resident of the local area/village should be held as vitiated. The learned Counsel for the respondents resists the arguments stating that both the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent are equally qualified and as per the guidelines preference shall be given to the resident of the village. The question whether the petitioner was the resident of the village or not is a question of fact and the finding of the authority on the question of residence will not normally be interfered by this Court. The learned Government Pleader also supports the above contentions of fourth respondent and submits that the order of the first respondent is justified as it is in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government in this regard.