IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27767 of 2008 Between: R. Venkata Rami Reddy S/o. Nallappa Reddy R/o. H.No. 2/395, Papampalli Village, H/o. Muttala, Atmakur Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector (Civil Supplies) Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies) Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 4 The Tahsildar, Atmakur Mandal, Anantapur District. 5 C. Laxminarayana Reddy S/o. Chinna Venkatappa R/o. Papampalli Village H/o. Muttala Atmakur Mandal, Anantapur District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for respondent No.5: MR.A.NARSI REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed calling in question order dated 12.12.2008 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he allowed the revision petition filed by respondent No.5 and set aside order of stay granted by respondent No.2 in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of respondent No.3 appointing respondent No.5 as fair price shop dealer. Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that while respondent No.5 and three others have got minimum educational qualifications, respondent No.5 was chosen as fair price shop dealer though he failed SSC. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies invited my attention to G.O.Ms.No.53, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 06.10.2003, which shows that where no candidate is available with the said minimum general educational qualifications; a candidate possessing lesser educational qualifications, which shall not be less than a pass in 5th class, if applied, may be considered for appointment. She stated that since except the petitioner all other candidates were involved in a criminal case, the appointing authority has considered and appointed the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer. Since the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before respondent No.2, it is not proper for this Court to render findings on merits. However, in my considered view, respondent No.5 having already been appointed as fair shop dealer, there is no justification to prevent him from functioning as fair price shop dealer till such time as the appeal of the petitioner is disposed of on merits by respondent No.2. Preventing respondent No.5 from functioning, as fair price shop dealer does not enure to the benefit of the petitioner in any manner. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. The appointment and functioning of respondent No.5 as fair price shop dealer shall be subject to the result of the appeal pending before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the appeal, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order dated 23.12.2008 is vacated. WPMP No.36386 of 2008, WVMP Nos.933 and 1652 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 27th July, 2009 vrn