HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7740 of 2008 Date : 26.08.2011 Between : Smt. Bolla Jagadeeswari. …..Petitioner And The District Collector, Srikakulam & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7740 of 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under : “to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records of the order of the 1st Respondent passed in D.Dis.No.311/2007, dated 30.06.2007 [SR (R) No.18 of 2006 S.2. dated 30.06.2007] in confirming the order of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents passed in D.Dis.No.511/2006 S2, dated 16.09.2006 [in SRA No.58 of 2005] and Rc.No.2520/2002 A, dated 19.07.2005 respectively and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as fair price shop dealer of Moolipadu village, Mandasa Mandal, Srikakulam District”. There was a vacancy of fair price shop dealership in Moolipadu village of Mandasa Mandal in Srikakulam District. Pursuant to the notification issued by the primary authority-Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali, the petitioner, 5th respondent and one other candidate have applied to consider their candidature. The issuance of authorization and conditions to run the fair price shop are earlier governed by the provisions under the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, and presently governed by the Control Order of 2008. As per the said Control Order, a pass in 10th Class is the educational qualification required for appointment as a fair price shop dealer. Pursuant to the applications submitted by them, the petitioner and the 5th respondent were interviewed and on the ground that the performance of the 5th respondent in the interview is better than that of the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali, by order dated 19.07.2005, issued in Proceedings Rc.No.2520/2002 A, appointed the 5th respondent as a dealer. Aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No.5, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Collector, mainly on two grounds, alleging that the petitioner was qualified in intermediate and thus holds better qualification than respondent No.5, and that the 5th respondent was not a resident of Moolipadu village, and after her marriage, she left the village and not residing in the village. The Joint Collector, who is the appellate authority, has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, which is also confirmed in the revision filed before the District Collector, Srikakulam, by order in S.R (R) No.18/2006 S.2 dated 30.06.2007. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that though the petitioner is better qualified, and as much as the 5th respondent is not a native of Moolipadu village, the authorities have not considered the matter in proper perspective and passed the impugned orders. It is submitted that the petitioner has also produced a certificate issued by the Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat, to the effect that the 5th respondent is not residing in the village. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents and also the counsel appearing for the 5th respondent that there is a nativity certificate issued by the competent authority, which was taken note of by the authorities while confirming the appointment of respondent No.5. It is further submitted that any higher qualification like Intermediate is not a preferential qualification and all those who have completed 10th Class, stand on equal footing. I have perused the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the primary authority, the Joint Collector/appellate and also the District Collector/revisional authority. The primary authority has specifically recorded his finding that the performance of respondent No.5 in the interview is better than that of the petitioner and she has secured 45 marks, as against the petitioner, who secured only 40 marks. Though the petitioner got 30 marks for higher qualification against 25 marks of 5th respondent, the petitioner has secured only 10 marks in the general knowledge, whereas, the 5th respondent has secured 20 marks. When the minimum qualification is a pass in 10th Class as per the Control Order framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, and when the performance of respondent No.5 in the interview is better than that of the petitioner, merely on the ground that the petitioner is better qualified, she cannot assail the orders appointing the 5th respondent. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that respondent No.5 is not a native of Moolipadu village, but on a perusal of the order of the appellate authority, it is clear that there is nativity certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer of Mandasa Mandal, which is in proof of residence of respondent No.5 in Moolipadu village. Although the petitioner has relied on the certificate issued by the Sarpanch of Grampanchayat to the effect that 5th respondent is not residing in Moolipadu village, but under the scheme of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Sarpanch is not competent to issue certificate with regard to the residence of a person. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the primary authority, as confirmed by both the appellate and revisional authorities. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th August 2011 ajr