IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.12615 of 2008 Between: 1 Bejjanki Krishna S/o.Brahmaiah R/o.17-3-329, Kareemabad, Warangal Town & District. 2 Lakkarsu Raj Kumar S/o.Mogili R/o.22-2-37, Desaipeta, Warangal Town & District. 3 Neelarapu Ramesh S/o.Kotaiah R/o.11-26-126, Laxmipuram, Warangal Town & District. 4 Gullapally Ramadevi W/o.Nageshwar R/o.18-8-430, Kareemabad, Warangal Town & District. 5 Sriram Kalpana D/o.Narayana R/o.11-23-2667/5, Laxmipuram, Warangal Town & District. 6 Gudimalla Ramesh S/o.Jagannadham R/o.16-1-418, Ursu, Warangal Town & District. 7 Baswaraju Sambaiah S/o.Rama Swamy R/o.22-6-29, Desaipeta, Warangal Town & District. 8 Basani Praneetha D/o.Venkateshwarlu R/o.11-23-550/A, Laxmipuram, Warangal Town & District. 9 Mallam Vimala W/o.Srinivas R/o.11-23-1665, Vasavi Colony, Laxmipuram, Warangal Town & District. 10 Kusuma Rajender S/o.Buchi Raju R/o.11-23-889, Kasibugga, Warangal Town & District. 11 Apparaju Chandra Mohan S/o.Bixapathi R/o.15-11-98, Ramannapeta, Warangal Town & District. 12 Md.Majeed S/o.Yakoob R/o.11-23-13, Laxmipuram, Warangal Town & District. 13 Bollam Jyothsna W/o.Narender R/o.16-4-1480, Shivanagar, Warangal Town & District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Warangal. 2 The Joint Collector, Warangal. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal. 4 Jakku Indrasena S/o.Ramachandram R/o. Arvapally (V), Hasanparthy (M) Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records pertaining to Revision Petition No.1/08 from the file of the 1st respondent and quash the order dt.10.6.2008 passed therein and consequently direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioners as Fair Price Shop Dealers in respect of the shops to which they are appointed and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.12615 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondents. The thirteen petitioners are aggrieved by the common order of the 1st respondent – District Collector, Warangal, dated 10.06.2008, passed in six revisions preferred by the petitioners and others, against a common order dated 26.12.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent – Joint Collector, Warangal, in the appeals preferred by the 4th respondent and others against the selection and authorization granted to the petitioners as fair price shop dealers in Warangal Division. The 3rd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal, issued notifications on 10.10.2007 calling for applications from eligible candidates for grant of authorization to run fair price shops. Pursuant to the written test and oral interview conducted, provisional selection orders were issued, in proceedings dated 06.11.2007, to the successful applicants including the petitioners. Aggrieved by such orders of the 3rd respondent, granting authorization to the petitioners and others, the 4th respondent, who was an unsuccessful applicant in the selection, preferred appeals to the 2nd respondent. The appeals were allowed inter alia on the ground that the notifications issued by the 3rd respondent were vitiated on account of non-specification of the fair price shops that are intended/reserved for Schedule Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Backward Classes/Physically Handicapped/Women, so as to enable only the eligible categories to apply; vitiated for not ensuring the percentage of reservation to the categories as per the Government policy set out in G.O.Ms.No.53 CA. F&CS (CS-I) Department dated 06.10.2003; vitiated in view of the shortfall in a few categories namely S.T. and P.H., the notifications of the 24 shops should have clearly mentioned that the specified of them are reserved for those categories; vitiated since the results were not published on the next day of interview in 19 of the cases and also since there were serious errors in the selection process lacking transparency and fairness. Aggrieved by the appeals having been allowed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners have preferred a revision to the 1st respondent. By the impugned order, dated 10.06.2008, the 1st respondent rejected the revisions and confirmed the orders of the 2nd respondent allowing the appeals. The 1st respondent- revisional authority concurred with all the conclusions of the 2nd respondent- appellate authority with regard to the vitiating factors, which invalidated the notifications and consequent selections by the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not factually dispute the vitiating factors in the selection process, namely and inter alia, that the notifications issued by the 3rd respondent failed to specify which of the fair price shops are reserved for specified categories. This is a serious infirmity apart from being contrary to the Government policy enunciated in G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06.10.2003. When the notifications issued by the respondent recruiting authority are themselves invalid, it is axiomatic that the selections are vitiated. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are not at fault. Be that as it may, the injury to public interest of which reservation is the fundamental component by virtue of the state’s policy choices in the area is apparent from the flaw in the notifications as well as in the selection process. Such injury overweighs any collateral injury suffered by the petitioners as a consequence of their selection and appointments as had been set at naught by the appellate and revisional authorities. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court discerns no infirmity in the appellate and revisional orders warranting judicial review in this writ petition. The writ petition has no merits and is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM 18th June, 2008 IBL To 1 The District Collector, Warangal. 2 The Joint Collector, Warangal. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal. 4 Two CD Copies