THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19229 of 2009 ORDER: Though the matter is listed under the caption ‘interlocutory’, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and being disposed of by this order. This writ petition is filed questioning the order, dated 02.07.2009 passed by the second respondent - Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Vizianagaram, in FPSAP.No.28/2008-G6 and further order, dated 16.08.2009 passed by the first respondent - Collector and District Magistrate, Vizianagaram, in R.P.No.2/2009/G8. Respondent No.3-Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, who is empowered to appoint fair price shop dealers under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, issued a notification inviting applications for appointment of fair price shop dealer of Maddupada Village, Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The petitioner, respondent No.5 and some others were the applicants. The primary authority-respondent No.3, after considering the merits of the applicants, selected and issued appointment order to the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer. As against the said order, respondent No.5 carried the matter by way of appeal before respondent No.2, only on the ground that he possesses higher qualification than the petitioner. The appellate authority allowed the appeal of respondent No.5 by setting aside the proceedings, dated 30.09.2008, issued in R.C.No.1084/08 directing respondent No.3 to cause enquiry on the following aspects: (a) Whether the appointed dealer is still working in the Talasila Chola Bhupathi Agricultural and Horticultural Farm and (b) Whether the shop is being run by the appointed dealer or by his own brother, Sri Akkunaidu, and based on the findings to initiate further appropriate action within four weeks duly giving opportunity of being heard to both the respondent as well as the appellant herein. As against the said order, the petitioner carried the matter by way of revision before respondent No.1 but the revisional authority dismissed the same by order, dated 16.08.2009 in R.P.No.2/2009/G8. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that though the appeal was filed only on one ground, the appellate authority set aside the appointment of the petitioner totally on irrelevant grounds. It is submitted that the petitioner was working in a private firm, but he has stopped working as such. In this view of the matter, there is no impediment for his appointment as a fair price shop dealer. It is also submitted that even the revisional authority did not go into the merits of the matter, in spite of the specific grounds raised by the petitioner. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents 1 to 4 that when there are allegations against the petitioner that he was working in a private firm and his brother is looking after the fair price shop on his behalf, the appellate authority has remanded the matter to the primary authority to enquire into such allegations. In this case, it is to be noticed that the appeal of respondent No.5 is only on the ground that he studied up to graduation whereas the petitioner has passed only 10th class. When both the applicants fulfilled the minimum qualifications notified for appointment as a fair price shop dealer, merely because respondent No.5 is better qualified than the petitioner is not a ground to seek annulment of the appointment of the petitioner. With regard to his earlier appointment in a private firm is also no ground to set aside the appointment of the petitioner. After the selection of the petitioner, if he is not discharging the duties as a fair price shop dealer, it is always open to the primary authority to take action. But, such grounds are not the basis to set aside the appointment of the petitioner at this stage. It is submitted that in view of the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner is continuing as a fair price shop dealer pursuant to his appointment. In that view of the matter, as this Court is of the opinion that the grounds on which the appellate authority has set aside the appointment of the petitioner are not valid and further, the revisional authority has not recorded any valid reasons for rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate that it is a fit case to set aside the order of respondent No.2 as confirmed by respondent No.1-revisional authority. For the aforesaid reasons, the order, dated 02.07.2009, passed in FPSAP No.28/2008 G6, by respondent No.2 and further order, dated 16.08.2009 passed in R.P.No.2/2009/G8 by respondent No.1 are hereby set aside. The appointment of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer is upheld. It is made clear that if the petitioner is not discharging the functions as the fair price shop dealer, it is always open for respondents 1 to 4 to take action in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dt:05.12.2011 kdl