THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.27256 OF 2011 DATE:20-12-2011 BETWEEN A.Anjaneyulu … petitioner AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District And others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.27256 OF 2011 ORDER: Petitioner, who is an unsuccessful applicant for grant of a fair price shop authorization, has filed this writ petition challenging the appointment of the third respondent vide orders of first respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur in proceedings No.1039/2011/C, dated 31.8.2011. First respondent issued a notification dated 1.6.2011 calling for applications from the Physically Handicapped persons for appointing a dealer for a fair price shop at Sunnampalli Village of OD Cheruvu Mandal. The petitioner and the third respondent filed their applications responding to the said notification. The first respondent conducted written test and viva voce duly serving notices to both the applicants. The first respondent considered the matter and evaluated the applicants as follows: “1. Name of the candidate: N.Lakshmipathi Reddy S/o.N.Konda Reddy > The applicant is resident of Chowdepalli H/o Sunnampalli Village of OD Cheruvu Mandal. > The Date of birth is 10.6.1977 and aged about 34 years. > He belongs to Kapu (OC) community. > He studied upto SSC and extent of disability is 40% > Solvency is good 2. Name of the candidate: A.Anjaneyulu S/o.A.Nageswar > The applicant is resident of Sunnampalli Village of OD Cheruvu Mandal. > His date of birth is 14-6-1986 and aged about 25 years > He belongs to Kapu (OC) Community. > He studied upto SSC and extent of disability is 45% > Solvency is good.” Thus the first respondent found the third respondent as more suitable candidate, who has secured highest marks in the written test as well as interview. Accordingly, the first respondent granted authorization in favour of third respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner has approached this Court without availing the alternative remedy and the writ petition is heard on being pursued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even though the first respondent is under an obligation to select a suitable candidate by awarding marks both in the written test and in the interview as well, he has failed to do so and has appointed the third respondent on political considerations. It is contended that the appointment is arbitrary since the impugned order does not disclose the marks awarded to each of the applicants. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. The first respondent filed his counter. The counter inter alia states that a written test was conducted as notified on 22.6.2011 and interview was also conducted by duly serving notices to both the applicants on 18.7.2011. It is stated that the third respondent secured highest marks in the written test as well as in the interview and his antecedents were found to be satisfactory. Therefore, the third respondent was selected and appointed as the dealer. It is further stated that the petitioner secured 20 marks in the written test and 22 marks in the interview, thus secured 42 marks in total; whereas the third respondent secured 24 marks in the written test and 26 marks in the interview, thus secured 50 marks in total. Since the authorization is meant for physically handicapped persons, both the applicants being physically handicapped with 45% and 40% disability respectively, in view of the better performance of the third respondent, the authorization has been granted in his favour. The third respondent filed a counter inter alia contending that he is rightly appointed by due procedure and as per the guidelines under G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 19.2.2011 and that the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner failed to avail alternative remedies. I have considered the respective contentions. The sole and substantive ground raised by the petitioner is that the first respondent failed to award marks and disclose the same in the impugned order. It is true that even though in the impugned order it is stated that the third respondent secured highest marks, it does not disclose how many marks the applicants have secured. It is not in dispute that the written test was conducted besides the interview. Admittedly, both the applicants attended the written test and the interview as well. Since the petitioner raised factual dispute, this Court called for the original record. On perusal, the record discloses that the applications were processed on the basis of the marks obtained. The record also discloses that marks were awarded to the petitioner and the respondent as well. The petitioner secured 42 marks in total (20 marks in written test + 22 marks in interview) and the third respondent secured 50 marks (24 marks in written test + 26 marks in interview). Thus the contention of the petitioner that marks were not awarded to the petitioner in the interview is not tenable. Even though the marks were not reflected in the impugned order, the same, in my opinion, does not vitiate the process, since at the most, the non-disclosure of the marks is only irregularity but not an illegality. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, no orders are required to be passed in WPMP.No.33647 of 2011 and the same shall stand dismissed as unnecessary. No order as to costs. _______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. DECEMBER 20, 2011 Tsr.