IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5680 of 2008 Between: Lanka Kalyani W/o.Venkata Ramana R/o.Anthakapalli(V) Rajam(M) Srikakulam Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Vakamulla Jyotsna Devi D/o.Neelakantam Naidu Anakapalli(V) Rajam(M) Srikakulam Dist 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda, Srikakulam District. 3 The Joint Collector, Srikakulam District. 4 The District Collector, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.R.SRINIVAS Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.ARAVALA RAMA RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to invalidate the appointment of respondent No.1 as fair price shop dealer of Anthakapalli Village, Rajam Mandal, Srikakulam District, made by respondent No.2 and confirmed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in appeal and revision respectively. The petitioner and respondent No.1 applied for fair price shop dealership in respect of Anthakapalli Village, Rajam Mandal, Srikakulam District, in response to notification dated 30-08-2006, issued by respondent No.2. After considering the claims of the petitioner and respondent No.1, respondent No.2 appointed respondent No.1 as fair price shop dealer of Anthakapalli Village by order dated 19-09-2006. The appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.3 was dismissed by order dated 02- 06-2007. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before respondent No.4. Eventually, the said revision was dismissed on 10-02-2008. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. Heard Sri K.R.Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. At the hearing, the only contention advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that initially respondent No.2 issued notification dated 16-02-2006 calling for applications for appointing the fair price shop dealer of Anthakapalli Village, and since respondent No.1 was short of the required age by a few months, the said notification was shelved and after respondent No.1 attained eligibility, respondent No.2 issued a fresh notification on 30-08-2006 only with the intention that respondent No.1 becomes eligible and applies for fair price shop dealership. He submitted that this aspect was not properly considered by respondent Nos.3 and 4. Admittedly, the petitioner applied for fair price shop dealership in response to notification dated 30-08-2006 without any demur. He, thus, took his chance and was unsuccessful in his endeavor to get appointed. He has later turned round and questioned the validity of the said notification on the ground that the same was issued mala fide. This conduct of the petitioner constitutes waiver disentitling him from questioning the validity of the notification, in pursuance of which he applied and was unsuccessful. The petitioner has, thus, acquiesced in questioning the validity of notification dated 30-08-2006, under which respondent No.1 was appointed. Even on merits, I see no reason to interfere with the well-considered order passed by respondent No.4. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder: ‘Sri S.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate representing Sri S.Rudrasekhararao, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner has argued that the Respondent No.1 has not attained the required age by the date of 1st notification, as such the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda, has issued 2nd notification to accommodate the respondent No.1 and that the Revision Petitioner is the resident of Mogilivalasa Village, which is a hamlet village of Anthakapalli Village. The Advocate has requested to consider the merits in the case as ordered by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and to set aside the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda. Sri Y.Muralimohanarao, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 has argued that the Respondent has fared well in the interview, that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda, in his orders, discussed the merits and demerits of the two candidates appeared to the interview, that the Respondent No.1 is an un-employee whereas the Revision Petitioner is working as Community Coordinator in “Indiramma Kranthi Padham” on salary of Rs.1500/- per month. Further, that the Revision Petitioner is the resident of Mogilivalasa Village, wherein a separate FP shop is located, whereas the Respondent No.1 is the resident of Anthakapalli, where the present FP shop is situated. That the revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda, has cancelled 1st Notification due to administrative grounds, issued 2nd Notification and that in fact along with the Revision Petitioner and Respondent, another candidate Smt.Sunkari Bharathi, W/o.Janardhanarao, had also applied for the FP shop. The Advocate has argued that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda has rightly appointed the Respondent No.1 as FP Shop Dealer, Anthakapalli Village and requested to dismiss the Revision Petition. I have carefully gone through the arguments on both sides and material on record. The main contention of the Advocate of the Revision Petitioner is that by the date of first notification, the respondent No.1 is not having the required eligibility. However, the contention of the Advocate for the respondent No.1 is that the respondent No.1, has fared well in the interview and hence, she was selected. Be that as it may, the very fact that the 2nd notification was issued, made eligible the contending candidates for the interview and also as per the observation of the appointing authority, i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda, the respondent No.1, has fared well in the interview. Therefore, the Joint Collector has rightly upheld the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda. In the result, the following orders are hereby made. The Revision Petition is dismissed.’ For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails, and it is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.7371 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 17-03-2008 LUR