SHRAWAN RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25/4/2006 (Annex. 9) and order dated 20/9/2006 (Annex. 12 ). Further, it is prayed that the order dated 7/10/2005 (Annex. 13) issued by the State Government to the extent it provides for constitution of advisory committee and making its recommendation on the point to the District Collector may kindly be quashed and set aside because the same being contrary to the Order of 1976. Further, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the recommendation made for allotment by the Allotment Advisory Committee on 15/2/2006 and further direction to the respondents to appoint him as a retailer of the Fair Price Shop of Village Dangawas as he falls in priority than Shri Deva Ram as per Notification Annex. 5.

(2.) THE facts leading to this case are that the petitioner being & member of Schedule Caste and an orthopaedically disabled person having qualification of secondary from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan applied for Fair Price Shop in village Dangawas District Nagaur in pursuance of notification issued by District Collector (Supply), Nagaur on 18/10/2005 (Annex. 5 ). According to the petitioner, he fulfills the criteria laid down under the Notification for appointment as Retailer (Fair Price Shop ). Along with petitioner persons namely; Surendra Danga (Graduate), Khinya Ram (10th Pass), Inder Raj Meghwal (Graduate), Ram Narayan (9th Pass), Mangla Ram (XI Pass) and respondent no. 4, Deva Ram also applied for appointment as Retailership. According to petitioner, respondent no. 4 Deva Ram is only 8th Pass and has not filed any certificate of school along with the application.

(3.) THE respondent no. 4 while filing reply to the writ petition specifically mentioned that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that allegation of malafides have been levelled against the M. P. , Nagaur but he has not been impleaded as party respondent. Further it is pointed out that on the basis of principle of estoppal the petitioner cannot question the decision of selection committee, while challenging the selection process. According to the respondent no. 4, petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, therefore, his conduct disentitles him to get any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that judicial review is not permissible against a decision of expert committee under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Since in the present case, Advisory Allotment Committee being expert committee recommended the case of respondent no. 4 and pursuant thereto he was appointed as retailer, therefore, there is no illegality in allotment made in his favour.