Y. SHRINIVASA RAO Vs. J. VEERAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case relates to the appointment of a dealer of a fair price shop in Andhra Pradesh. An advertisement for the purpose was issued on 16.4.1990 as per annexure A inviting applications from the eligible candidates subject to, inter alia, the following conditions: -

(2.) THE Collector, thus, obviously did not interfere with the choice of the lower authorities in a casual manner as is clear from his judgment wherein he has observed that normally the orders of the lower authorities are not upset except for special circumstances. The respondent No.1 challenged his order before the High Court by a writ petition, which was heard and allowed by a learned single Judge, and the Division Bench lias, by the impugned judgment, confirmed the same. Admittedly the appellant is an unemployed graduate in Commerce and has the experience of running fair price shop in the past, while the only qualification claimed by the respondent No.1, is that he has passed the school examination upto 10th class only. The impugned appointment was made by the authority after holding an interview and it is the case of the appellant that the Revenue Divisional Officer merely enquired from him about his bio -data without putting any further question by which the merits could have been judged. On that sole basis the shop was allotted to the respondent. Considering the criteria, as mentioned in the advertisement, the Collector accepted the claim of the appellant, pointing out that the appellant was a better candidate from every angle. The High Court has quashed his judgment by condemning it as perverse but without indicating any reason for such a view.

(3.) IT appears that the question of settlement of fair price shops in the State of Andhra Pradesh has been the subject of controversy for some time and from the records of the Revenue Department it is manifest that the approach which has been adopted by the authorities has not been consistent. The non -speaking orders of this Court dismissing many special leave petitions indicate that a good number of cases have been brought to this Court in the past but were not entertained. We have, therefore, considered it desirable to indicate our views on the policy adopted by the State in the eight of the constitutional provisions. The decision to prefer an uneducated person over an educated person amount" to allowing premium on ignorance, incompetence and consequently inefficiency. The only fault of the appellant is to have pursued his studies beyond 10th Class of his school. If he had discontinued his career as a student even earlier, say after passing 7th or 8th class, he would have been running the shop today. This clearly amounts to gross arbitrariness and, therefore, illegal discrimination. Pursuing this line the State will have to be going in search of a more inefficient person and we do not know where this process would end. If we assume that since a better qualified person has got a better chance to succeed in life, an intelligent applicant who can run the shop efficiently should be rejected and a dim witted fellow should be selected. This is an absurd situation.