IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.6333 of 2007 Between: Velpula Venkata Ramana. … Petitioner And: The District Collector, Ananthapur, Ananthapur District and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.Vijaya Babu . Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Civil Supplies. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in calling for the applications for filling up the vacancy of Fair Price Shop Dealer of Ganjivaripalli village, Talupula Mandal, Anantapur District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is one of the candidates, who applied for the fair price shop dealership of Ganjivaripalli village, in pursuance of notification dated 11-2-2002. Written examination was held on 28-2-2002 and interviews were also held on the same day by respondent No.2. Without making any appointment in pursuance of the said process of selection, respondent No.3 issued fresh notification, dated 20-3-2007, calling for applications for filling up of the above-mentioned vacancy. This notification is assailed in this Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri G.Vijaya Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.2 has not finalized the selection process in pursuance of the earlier notification dated 11-2-2002, and that, therefore, the impugned notification, which is issued afresh, cannot be sustained in law. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2 it is, inter alia, stated that on 28-2-2002 three candidates, including the petitioner, appeared for interview; that on examining the antecedents report of the candidates, respondent No.2 passed note orders on the file stating that all the candidates seem to be from one family and, hence, it was decided to reject the applications of all the three persons and re-notify the vacancy of Ganjivaripalli village; that the result was announced on 14-3-2002; and that fresh notification was accordingly issued on 15-3-2007. In compliance with the directions of this Court, respondent No.2 produced the record before the Court, wherein it is stated as under: “As seen from the above, all the candidates are seems to be from one family. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Talupula has reported that he is defaulter of CMEY. It is not desirable to give chance to one family. Hence, it is decided to re-notify for filling up the dealership of the Ganjivaripalli village of Talupula Mandal”. Sri Praveen Kumar, Sub-Collector, Penukonda, who is present in the Court, stated that since the results were announced by his predecessor on 14-3-2002, there was no need for notifying the results through any other method, such as placing the same in the notice board etc., which procedure will be followed only if the results are not announced openly. Sri G.Vijaya Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, even according to the stand taken by respondent No.2 in his counter-affidavit, written test and interviews were held on 28-2-2002 and, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner or any other candidate to be present in the office of respondent No.2 when he purportedly announced the results on 14-3-2002. He also stated that none of the candidates, including the petitioner, had any knowledge of announcement of the results. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Neither in the record nor in the counter-affidavit it is mentioned that the results were announced in the presence of the candidates. Admittedly, the results were not communicated to any of the candidates either personally or through a public notice. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have followed reasonable procedure in terminating the process of selection initiated in pursuance of the previous notification before embarking upon issuance of a fresh notification. In my considered view, non- communication of the results of the written test and interview to the petitioner and other candidates vitiated the entire selection process. Admittedly, no fresh selections have been made in pursuance of the impugned notification. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused if the impugned notification, which was issued as far back as 15-3-2007, is set aside - more so when the respondents have admittedly not proceeded with issuing a fresh notification nearly five years after respondent No.2 decided to cancel the selection process and initiate fresh selection process. The respondents are permitted to initiate fresh process after communicating the results of the process of selection under taken in pursuance of notification dated 11-2- 2002 to the petitioner and other candidates. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notification is quashed with liberty to the respondents as above. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:22-7-2009 MNR