HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.29162 of 2008 Date: September 15, 2011 Between: Kadari Manjula, W/o.Hanumanthu, Aged about 21 years, Occ:Fair Price Shop Dealer, Kattangoor village and Mandal, Nalgonda District … Petiitoner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 20.09.2008 passed in proceedings No.CSI/236/08, by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Nalgonda, as confirmed by the 1st respondent-District Collector, Nalgonda, by order dated 22.12.2008 in Case No.CSI/1930/08. The 3rd respondent-RDO issued notification dated 31.10.2007 inviting applications for appointment of dealer for the fair price shop of Kattangoor village and Mandal, Nalgonda District and after conducting interviews selected the petitioner herein and appointed her as dealer for the said shop vide proceedings dated 10.03.2008. Aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner, the 5th respondent filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector. By order dated 20.09.2008, the 2nd respondent, while referring to the report of the 3rd respondent-RDO and recording a specific finding that there are allegations against the petitioner, there is lack of transparency in selecting her and her husband is a private employee, has set aside the appointment of the petitioner. Questioning the said order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner carried the matter in revision before the 1st respondent-District Collector, who, by his order dated 22.12.2008 passed in Case No.CSI/1930/08, by recording a finding that the petitioner is having sufficient means of livelihood and her husband is working in a private hospital, has confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents 1 to 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no valid reasons have been recorded by the appellate authority for setting aside the appointment of the petitioner as dealer for the fair price shop in question. It is stated that the 5th respondent was the Chairman of Grandhalaya Samithi and he too, has sufficient means and owns a RCC house and other properties; in that view of the matter, without recording any specific finding on the disqualification of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent- appellate authority has passed the order dated 20.09.2008. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondents 1 to 4 that the appellate authority has recorded a finding that there is no transparency in the selections and accordingly set aside the appointment of the petitioner and the same is confirmed by the 1st respondent- revisional authority. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I have perused the order dated 20.09.2008 of the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector. Primarily, it is to be seen that, from the arguments before appellate and revisional authorities, it is clear that both the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent belong to backward castes; whereas the petitioner belongs to Mangali community, the 5th respondent belongs to Gouda community. Though it is stated that the husband of the petitioner is having ancestral landed properties and will get share in the said properties, in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is categorically admitted that the share of the husband of the petitioner is Ac.1.00 guntas in the ancestral property and that he is working in a private hospital. The petitioner was appointed as dealer after conducting interview and based on her performance in the interview. When the 5th respondent has filed an appeal against the appointment of the petitioner, without recording any valid reason, the 2nd respondent-appellate authority has simply set aside the appointment of the petitioner on vague and irrelevant grounds, namely that there is no transparency in the appointment and the husband of the petitioner is working in a private hospital. Working in a private hospital by the husband of the petitioner is not a disqualification as per the guidelines under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2008. Even the 1st respondent-revisional authority has not considered the grounds of revision raised by the petitioner and simply confirmed the order of the appellate authority on the ground that the petitioner is having sufficient means of livelihood. Merely because the husband of the petitioner gets a share of Ac.1.00 guntas in his ancestral properties and that he is working in a private hospital, it cannot be said that they are having sufficient means of livelihood so as to disqualify the petitioner for appointment as a dealer for the fair price shop in question. In the absence of any valid reason, the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the 5th respondent, which is confirmed by the revisional authority, again, without recording any valid reasons. Hence the order dated 20.09.2008 passed in proceedings No.CSI/236/08, by the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, Nalgonda, as confirmed by the 1st respondent- District Collector, Nalgonda, by order dated 22.12.2008 in Case No.CSI/1930/08, is quashed. Consequently, the appointment of the petitioner is restored. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) September 15, 2011 MRR