THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.1251 of 2011 Date : 27-1-2011 Between : Smt.Porika Prameela w/o.Renu Naik .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in conducting fresh interviews for appointment of fair price shop dealer for Mancherial village, pending revision before respondent No.1, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri D.Seshasayana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer by respondent No.3 on 20-3-2010. Feeling aggrieved by the said appointment, an unsuccessful candidate filed an appeal before respondent No.2, who by his order dated 2-9- 2010 allowed the appeal holding that as the petitioner has crossed 40 years of age as on the date of filing of application, she was not eligible for appointment and remanded the matter to respondent No.3 with a direction to conduct denovo process for appointment of the fair price shop dealer. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner claimed to have filed a revision petition before respondent No.1 and the said revision is stated to be pending. Meanwhile, in pursuance of the order passed by respondent No.2, respondent No.3 has directed all the persons including the petitioner to attend interview on 28-1-2011 at 11 A.M. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while his client’s revision petition is pending before respondent No.1, respondent No.3 ought to have awaited order in the revision petition before proceeding further in pursuance of the order of respondent No.2. The learned counsel also submitted that the rules prescribing the maximum age and the qualification are silent as to the cut- off date for reckoning the maximum age and that admittedly his client was within the maximum age limit as on the date of notification i.e., 9-3-2010. Inasmuch as the revision petition filed by the petitioner is pending before respondent No.1, it is not proper for this court to adjudicate upon the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner. It will suffice to note that a substantive issue was raised by the petitioner, namely, whether the date of notification shall be taken for the purpose of reckoning the maximum age and if not what is the date that requires to be taken for this purpose. In view of the fact that the revision petition wherein such question is raised by the petitioner is pending before respondent No.1, I find no justification in respondent No.3 in seeking to proceed with the interviews afresh. Accordingly, respondent No.3 is directed not to proceed with fresh interviews in pursuance of his notice dated 22-12-2010 till disposal of the revision petition by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the revision petition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after notice to all the parties. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.1518/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date: 27-1-2011 AM