THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3222 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning order, dated 12.04.2002 passed by the third respondent – Sub-Collector, Madanapalle in proceedings D.Dis.A3/633/2002, as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities vide orders, dated 24.05.2002 and 12.12.2007 in proceedings D.Dis.SI/800/2002 and D.Dis.E1/1299/02 respectively. There was a vacancy of fair price shop dealer of Buchipalli Village, Pedda Tippa Samudram Mandal, Chittoor District. Pursuant to the notification issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedda Tippa Samudram Mandal, to fill up the said vacancy, the petitioner and the fourth respondent applied for it. The primary authority after examining the qualifications and interviewing the candidates, found that the fourth respondent is more suitable having regard to the over all performance in the interview and accordingly, selected and appointed the fourth respondent as fair price shop dealer of Buchipalli Village, on permanent basis. As against the same, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the second respondent/appellate authority - Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal vide his order, dated 24.05.2002 in proceedings D.DIS.SI/800/2002. Further, the matter was carried in revision before the first respondent/revisional authority – District Collector, Chittoor, who in turn, also dismissed the same by his order, dated 12.12.2007 in D.Dis.E1/1299/02. In this Writ Petition, the only contention advanced by Sri M.Venkataramana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that neither the fourth respondent nor any of the members of the group qualified 10th class, as such, very appointment of the fourth respondent is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 06.10.2003. I have perused the grounds of appeal and revision filed by the petitioner before the appellate and revisional authorities. It is not the case of the petitioner neither before the appellate authority nor the revisional authority that there is no minimum educational qualification held by the fourth respondent at all. The only ground raised by the petitioner was, she was more qualified than the fourth respondent. In the absence of any specific ground raised by the petitioner with regard to the minimum qualification held by the fourth respondent, merely on the ground that the petitioner is more qualified than the fourth respondent, that by itself is not a ground to invalidate the selection and appointment of the fourth respondent. If more than one candidate is available with the minimum educational qualification, it is open for the selecting authority to take other factors into consideration, namely, performance in the interview etc. A perusal of order, dated 12.04.2002 passed by the third respondent clearly indicates that the fourth respondent has done well in the interview and is having sound knowledge over the Public Distribution System. In view of the said finding recorded by the primary authority for selecting the fourth respondent as fair price shop dealer of Buchipalli Village and in the absence of any ground raised by the petitioner before the appellate and revisional authorities that the fourth respondent was not possessing minimum educational qualification, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality or irregularity in order, dated 12.04.2002 passed by the third respondent in selecting and appointing the fourth respondent as fair price shop dealer of Buchipalli Village and consequential orders, dated 24.05.2002 and 12.12.2007 passed by the appellate and revisional authorities dismissing the appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner, respectively, warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th SEPTEMBER, 2011. kvni