THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8387 of 2008 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed questioning proceedings, dated 31.03.2008 issued in Rc.No.2316/07 by the second respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, in appointing the fourth respondent as a fair price shop dealer of Rellivalasa Village, Poosapati Rega Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The second respondent issued a notification on 12.03.2008 in Rc.No.2316/2007 D inviting applications to fill up the vacancies of 20 fair price shops in the revenue division of Vizianagaram. The fair price shop at Rellivalasa Village was one of the notified vacancies reserved for Physically Handicapped. In response to the notification issued by the second respondent, the petitioners, the fourth respondent and two others have applied for appointment as a dealer of fair price shop No.3 of Rellivalasa Village. As per the procedure notified in the notification, the petitioners, the fourth respondent and another candidate were interviewed on 31.03.2008 and marks were awarded after assessing their performance and verifying their educational qualifications. On the ground that the fourth respondent secured 7 marks in the interview, he was selected and appointed. In this Writ Petition, mainly, appointment of the fourth respondent is questioned on the ground that disability of the petitioners is higher in terms of percentage than that of the fourth respondent. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that percentage of disability of the fourth respondent is less than 50% as such his selection and appointment is contrary to the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 02.12.2002. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and perused the impugned order passed by the second respondent and G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 02.12.2002 issued by the Government. From a perusal of G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 02.12.2002, issued by the Principal Secretary, Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare (DW) Department, it is evident that preference in employment should be given to the disabled having higher degree of disability, if all relevant factors governing recruitment are equal. It is to be noticed that under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the term “person with disability” is defined under Section 2(t) of the Act and it reads as under: “person with disability” means a person suffering from not less than 40% of any disability as certified by a medical authority.” When a vacancy is reserved for Physically Handicapped, the persons having not less than 40% of disability fall in the same bracket for the purpose of consideration. In this case, as stated in the counter-affidavit, to assess the merit among the applicants, interviews were conducted on 31.03.2008 and the fourth respondent has secured 7 marks, whereas petitioners have secured 5, 4 and 6 marks respectively. From this, it is clear that the fourth respondent secured higher marks proving his merit in the interview held on 31.03.2008. Further, it is to be noted that for the purpose of appointment as a fair price shop dealer, one has to be tested with regard to his capacity and knowledge to write the books of accounts and to deal with the cardholders for supply of essential commodities. Unless such merit is assessed, it may not be possible to appoint the candidates only on the basis of percentage of disability. First of all, it is doubtful whether G.O.Ms.No.56 can be applied to the appointments of fair price shop dealers. In any event, having regard to the instructions issued in the said G.O., it cannot be said that the appointment of the fourth respondent is contrary to the orders passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 02.12.2002, which prescribes preference in employment only in cases where all relevant factors governing recruitment are equal. In that view of the matter, in the aforesaid backdrop of the said G.O., when it is stated in the counter-affidavit that in the interview, the fourth respondent performed well and secured more marks than the petitioners, the plea of the petitioners that their disability is higher in terms of percentage than that of the fourth respondent is of no consequence to invalidate the appointment of the fourth respondent. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment in the case of M.RAJENDER REDDY v. OSMANIA UNIVERSITY[1], which relates to admission into law colleges, the said judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the present case having regard to the procedure followed by the respondents for appointment of fair price shop dealers where interviews were conducted to assess the knowledge and merit of the candidates to have the purposeful utility after appointment. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in selecting and appointing the fourth respondent as a dealer of fair price shop No.3 of Rellivalasa Village, Poosapati Rega Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th OCTOBER, 2011. kvni [1] 1991(II) A.L.T. 179