THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.28153 OF 2007 DATED 29TH JULY, 2011 BETWEEN P.Radha Krishna … Petitioner and The District Collector, (CS), Chittoor, Chittoor District, and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.28153 OF 2007 O R D E R The petitioner and the fifth respondent, the leader of Sri Saibaba DWCRA Group, along with others, applied for appointment as the authorized dealer for the fair price shop of Keeramanda Village of Bangarupalem Mandal, Chittoor District. Thereupon, the fifth respondent’s DWCRA Group was appointed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the third respondent, under proceedings dated 26.03.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner and another unsuccessful candidate, Subhashini, filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Chittoor. The said appeal was disposed of on 05.06.2002 directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, to consider their objections and to pass final orders. Aggrieved by these directions of the Joint Collector, Chittoor, the fifth respondent filed a revision before the District Collector, Chittoor District. By order dated 03.12.2007, the District Collector, Chittoor, set aside the directions of the Joint Collector, Chittoor, and upheld the appointment of the fifth respondent’s DWCRA Group as the fair price shop dealer of Keeramanda Village under the proceedings dated 26.03.2002 of the third respondent. Hence, this writ petition. This Court, by order dated 28.12.2007, granted interim suspension of the revisional order dated 03.12.2007 passed by the District Collector, Chittoor. Perusal of the grounds raised by the petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of this case reflects that he claimed primacy over the fifth respondent in terms of candidature on the ground that he had better educational qualifications and also had experience, having worked as a temporary dealer till the year 2002. It is on this basis that he asserted a claim for being considered over and above the fifth respondent’s DWCRA Group for appointment as the fair price shop dealer of the village. The District Collector, Chittoor, stated in his counter that the subject selection was conducted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.198, FCS & CA (CS.IV) Department, dated 05.02.1996, whereunder preference was to be given to DWCRA Groups while appointing fair price shop dealers. A copy of the said G.O. is placed on record and indicates that Clause 9(iii) thereof specifically states that preference shall be given to DWCRA Groups and thrift groups functioning under various names like ‘Podupu Lakshmi’. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fourth respondent ought to have explained the reasons in the appointment order as to why the fifth respondent’s DWCRA Group was chosen for appointment overlooking the candidature of the petitioner. Learned counsel contended that the comparative assessment of the merit of the candidates should be reflected in the appointment order. It is however to be noticed that G.O.Ms.No.198 dated 05.02.1996 stipulated the minimum general educational qualification required as a pass in VII Class and created a preferential right in DWCRA Groups to claim appointment. It is not denied by the petitioner that the fifth respondent possesses the minimum educational qualification of a pass in VII Class. That being so, in the light of the preferential right created under the said G.O. there is no substance in the argument advanced by the counsel that there should be comparative assessment of merit and that the same should be evident in the appointment order. Though the learned counsel also submitted that the other requirements of the G.O. had not been complied with, no pleadings in support of this attack are found in the writ affidavit. Learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in B.HANUMANTHU V/s. COLLECTOR, MAHABUBNAGAR DISTRICT[1]. Therein, the learned Judge held that in the case of appointment to be made even as Fair Price Shop Dealers, the procedure as specified in the rules and regulations, the guidelines and the relevant control orders, has to be followed. The learned Judge further observed that while considering the merits and demerits in the matter, reasons may have to be recorded. The ratio of the said Judgment has no application to the case on hand as this was not a case of candidates of equal standing being subjected to an assessment as to their comparative merit. The fifth respondent’s DWCRA Group enjoyed a preferential right under G.O.Ms.No.198 dated 05.02.1996 and therefore, the question of comparative assessment of merit between the petitioner and the fifth respondent’s DWCRA Group did not arise. There was thus no requirement for the appointing authority to record any reasons in the appointment order as to why the fifth respondent’s DWCRA Group was selected and appointed in preference to the petitioner. The learned counsel did not urge the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice raised in the writ affidavit in the context of the petitioner being denied an opportunity of being heard by the District Collector, Chittoor, while disposing of the revision. However, the District Collector, Chittoor, averred in his counter that after a hearing and perusal of the record, he had passed orders in the revision. This statement is not rebutted by the petitioner by filing a reply. Further, the petitioner neither asserted nor proved any prejudice caused to him by the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice. As stated supra, the petitioner’s contentions with regard to the appointment of the fifth respondent’s DWCRA Group as the fair price shop dealer of the Village are without merit and having failed in the selections, the petitioner continued as the fair price shop dealer of the Village all these years without a semblance of a right. He cannot therefore be permitted to fall back on alleged but unsubstantiated procedural violations at this stage. Viewed from any angle, the order dated 03.12.2007 of the revisional authority, the District Collector, Chittoor, allowing the fifth respondent’s revision petition is unassailable. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim suspension granted on 28.12.2007 shall stand vacated. No order as to costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 29TH JULY, 2011 PGS/VGSR [1] 2008 (6) ALD (NOC 95)