IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.27239 of 2008 Between: Smt.V.Sunitha. … Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Khammam, Khammam District and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri B.Kamalakara Rao. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies for R.1 to R3. None for R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 23-11-2008 passed in appeal No.D/303/2008 by respondent No.1, whereby he set aside order dated 14-7-2008 passed by respondent No.2 appointing the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of M.V.Palem village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District. Heard Sri B.Kamalakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondents 1 to 3. No one entered appearance for respondent No.4 in spite of service of notice. In pursuance of the notification issued by respondent No.2 for filling up the vacancy of dealership of fair price shop in M.V.Palem village, the petitioner and respondent No.4 applied along with others. They also appeared for interview held on 14-7-2008. After comparative assessment of the merits of all the candidates, respondent No.2 appointed the petitioner as a dealer, by order dated 14-7-2008. Since then the petitioner has been working as a fair price shop dealer. Questioning the petitioner’s appointment order, respondent No.4 filed an appeal before respondent No.1. By the impugned order, respondent No.1 allowed the said appeal, set aside the petitioner’s appointment and directed respondent No.2 to issue a fresh notification. A perusal of the order passed by respondent No.1 shows that the petitioner’s appointment was set aside mainly on three grounds viz., (1) respondent No.2 did not pass a speaking order and he failed to discuss the comparative merits and demerits of the persons; (2) respondent No.2 failed to consider that the husband of the petitioner is a press reporter and also employed as a Nodal Prerak and getting honorarium of Rs.1,200/- per month, and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as unemployed; and (3) respondent No.2 failed to follow 3% reservation provided for physically handicapped persons in G.O.Ms.No.53; out of 545 fair price shops, 16 shops must be reserved for persons belonging to handicapped category and there were only five handicapped dealers working in Khammam Revenue Division. Taking the second ground as first, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the reasons, viz., that the husband of the petitioner was a press reporter and also working as Nodal Prerak, are without any basis. According to him, while the petitioner’s husband was never a press reporter, the Deputy Director, District Saksharatha Samiti, Khamam, removed her husband from the post of Nodal Prerak on 26-2-2007. Respondent No.1 in his order has not disclosed that letter dated 30-9-2008 of the Mandal Literacy Organizer and verification report dated 14-7-2008 of the Tahsildar allegedly showing that the petitioner was a Nodal Prerak and press reporter respectively were put to the petitioner and an opportunity was given to her to establish the correctness or otherwise of the said documents. At any rate, even assuming that those documents proved that the husband of the petitioner was engaged in some occupation, there is no provision which disqualifies the petitioner for being appointed as a fair price shop dealer merely because her husband was undertaking some assignments as press reporter or Nodal prerak and getting some honorarium. Therefore, this ground is not germane for setting aside the petitioner’s appointment as a fair price shop dealer. As regards the first ground, the record produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader shows that respondent No.2 has awarded marks to all the candidates, who appeared before him and while the petitioner was awarded 12 marks, respondent No.4, who was considered at serial No.12, was awarded 7 marks. Though no formal order has been passed embarking upon the assessment of relative merits, the very fact that respondent No.2 has followed the method of awarding marks by giving due weight to the educational qualifications and other parameters, respondent No.2 cannot be said to have not properly assessed the relative merits of the candidates. Therefore, the first ground also cannot be sustained. With regard to the third ground, the notification issued by respondent No.2 was never questioned by anybody, including respondent No.4, on the ground that the reservation for physically handicapped persons was not followed. It was, therefore, not open to respondent No.4 to raise such a contention having applied in pursuance of the notification and appeared before respondent No.2 by taking her chances. Respondent No.4 has acquiesced in questioning the notification and the action of respondent No.2 in not reserving the shop for physically handicapped persons. Therefore, in my view, respondent No.1 committed a patent illegality in relying on that ground to set aside the order of appointment of the petitioner. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is quashed and the appointment order of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer is restored. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:08-6-2009 MNR