THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.7813 of 2007 Dated: 30.01.2008 Between Yeddula Venkata Kotaiah …Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.7813 of 2007 ORDER: Heard Sri I.Gopala Reddy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Sri K.V.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The writ petition is filed for issuance of writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari to call for records in Rc.1490/06 dated 01.02.2007 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District relating to the appointment of Fair Price Shop dealer for the village of Konakanamitla Village and Mandal, Prakasam District (including the earlier notification in Rc.1810/05, dated 01.10.2005) and to quash the notification dated 01.02.2007 in Rc.1490/06 pertaining to the appointment of Fair Price Shop dealer of Konakamitla Village and Mandal, Prakasam District and to pass such other suitable orders. 3. Sri I.Gopala Reddy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the notifications, dated 18.10.2005 and 01.02.2007 and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of appointing the writ petitioner as Fair Price Shop dealer, appointing the third respondent cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also would maintain that the second notification was issued only to accommodate the third respondent since she was a minor at the time of the interview conducted pursuant to the first notification. Hence, in the light of the facts and circumstances, the writ petition to be allowed. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies had taken this Court through the contents of the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 and would maintain that in the light of the view expressed by this Court in Saggam Sudharani v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, Nellore District[1], the action which is called in question in the present writ petition cannot be found fault. 5. Sri K.V.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel representing the third respondent had taken the same stand, which had been taken by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6. The petitioner is a resident of Konakanamitla Village and Mandal, Prakasam District and passed 10th class. There is a Fair Price Shop, which has been carved out for the village. With a view to control and ensure proper distribution of scheduled commodities, the appointing authority-the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur issued a notification in Rc.No.1810/05, dated 01.10.2005. As per the said notification, the Fair Price Shop was categorized as “General category” and applications were invited for appointment of F.P. Shop dealers. The last date for submitting the applications was 17.10.2005 before 5.00 p.m. The petitioner has passed 10th Class and unemployed and possessed necessary residential and solvency qualifications. The petitioner submitted an application and attended the interview on 18.10.2005 conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, along with other applicants. Among the total five candidates, who attended the interview, the petitioner alone possessed the necessary qualifications and has fared well in the interview. One of the applicant’s - Kum.Deepika, D/o.Thirupathi Reddy, who is shown as the third respondent in the present writ petition, was a minor and was not at all eligible for appointment and did not possess any requisite qualification. Further it is stated that though 16 months elapsed since the date of interview, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur did not make the appointment. Surprisingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur issued second notification in Rc.1490/06, dated 01.02.2007 in respect of the same Fair Price Shop of Konakanamitla Village. In the said notification, the Fair Price Shop is categorized as OC (Women) and 17.02.2007 was put as the last date for submission of the applications. 7. It is also stated that on reliable information it is understood that the second notification dated 01.02.2007 was issued only to accommodate the third respondent, as she was minor at the time of the interview conducted pursuant to notification dated 01.10.2005 and was not eligible at that time. Adding insult to injury, the categorization was changed from General to OC (Women) and it is learnt that the said Kum.Deepika applied pursuant to the notification, dated 01.02.2007, which was brought into existence only to appoint her as Fair Price Shop dealer of the said Konakanamitla Village. Further specific stand had been taken that the earlier notification was neither revoked nor cancelled. Questioning the said illegality, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Ongole and the learned Joint Collector, Ongole in Rc.CS2/238/2007, dated 13.02.2007, took the appeal on file and on the stay application called for records. It is also stated that yielding to the pressure of the opposite party and also from political circles, the Joint Collector, Ongole passed an order dismissing the appeal on 22.03.2007 even before the records were received. A revision was also filed before the District Collector, Prakasam and there is no response. In any view of the matter, the said appeal and Revision were filed understandably not under correct advice. Hence, in such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this Court raising certain specific grounds. 8. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that a notification was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer’s Office, Kandukur vide Rc.F.1810/2005, dated 01.10.2005 inviting applications for filling up of the vacancy of Fair Price Sop dealer under (OC) General category on regular basis. Accordingly, the petitioner-Sri Yeddula Venkata Kotaiah, S/o.Kotaiah of K.K.Mitla Mandal has attended the interview along with the other five candidates and no candidate was selected in the interview. It is not correct to say that the petitioner alone possessed necessary qualification. Except one, all the candidates, who applied for the post, have passed S.S.C. The process of selection was not finalized by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur and no selections were made and that since there is shortfall under Women Category another notification was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur vide Rc.F.1490/2006, dated 01.02.2007 under O.C (Women) category only. 9. It is also averred that it is not correct to say that the second notification, dated 01.02.2007, was issued to accommodate the third respondent and that it was brought into existence only to appoint her as Fair Price Shop dealer. As no candidate was selected in the interview conducted on 17.10.2005 by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur and as there is a shortfall in Women Category, a fresh notification was issued on 01.02.2007 reserving the vacancy for O.C (Women). It is also submitted that when the second notification was issued without announcing the result of earlier notification it is clear that the earlier notification is no more in existence and has lapsed. It is not correct to say that illegality and motive is apparent in bringing the second notification and it is baseless allegation without any strict proof. It is also not correct to say that the Joint Collector, Ongole passed an order dismissing the appeal even before the records were received yielding to pressure from the opposite party and from the political circles. The Joint Collector has called for the records of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur and they were submitted to the Joint Collector. After perusing the entire records and material facts, the Joint Collector has passed the said orders. 10. Further it is stated that there is shortfall under women category and with a view to fill up the shortfall, the notification was issued under OC (Women) and the contention of the petitioner that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur has not followed any guidelines in changing the category to OC (Women) is not correct. There is no arbitrary action and illegality as alleged. The contention of the petitioner that issuance of notification in Rc.1490/2006 dated 01.02.2007 without revoking or abrogating the earlier notification dated 01.10.2005 is arbitrary, illegal and malafied is not correct. This allegation is without any basis. If the result of the earlier notification was not declared by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, after conducting the interview, the present Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur cannot decide merits and demerits of the candidates as the interview was walk in nature (oral interview). Hence, the present Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur has therefore re-notified the vacancy by giving opportunity to the eligible OC (Women) candidates as there is shortfall in O.C(Women) Category as per the existing marks. It is not correct to say that the impugned notification was issued only to accommodate the third respondent-Kum.Deepa Devi, D/o.Thirupathi Reddy, and this allegation is also baseless and without any strict proof. 11. It is further offered that it is not correct to say that under the notification, dated 01.10.2005, the petitioner was the only applicant eligible and possessed necessary qualification. Except one, all the six candidates, who have attended the said interview, have got equal qualification i.e., 10th class. The petitioner did not possess any higher qualification than others and that he cannot imagine himself that he got higher qualification than others and he alone is eligible for selection. 12. The other averments also had been specifically denied. It is also stated that the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur had not announced the result of the interview conducted on 18.10.2005 and there is no chance of declaring the result at this juncture, as the nature of interview was oral. The vacancy was accordingly re-notified on 01.02.2007 under OC Women Category to fill the shortfall under the said category. The interview had also been conducted on 19.02.2007 and the result was announced by the time the orders were passed on 17.04.2007 and the third respondent was appointed. 13. In Saggam Sudharani’s case (supra), it was observed as under: “The above two decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are not relevant in as much as in the instant case, the rules have not been amended nor procedure for selection has been amended or altered. In the case on hand, pursuant to the first notification, only three candidates including the two petitioners herein applied and were interviewed. Selection, however, was not made nor any results announced. The vacancy was not filled. The contention, however, of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the vacancy is notified for appointment and interviews are conducted, the candidate who appeared in the interview if they are found fit, they should be appointed and if not so appointed, the action of the respondents has to be declared arbitrary. I cannot accede to the said contention of the learned Counsel. Ordinarily, the notification published inviting applications for filling up a post or vacancy merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for requirement. The candidates do not acquire any right to the post. In this connection, it would be relevant to quote a passage from Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (AIR 1991 SC 1612) which reads as under: “7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted.” From the above, it is apparent that qualified candidates who apply pursuant to a notification and even on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post and that unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicated, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. The respondents, however, have to justify their action in not filling up the vacancy pursuant to the 1st notification and that their action is bona fide. We have therefore to ascertain in the instant case, whether the decision not to fill up vacancy is arbitrary. Neither the advertisement, nor the recruitment rules indicate that the candidates applying pursuant to the 1st notification published in that behalf have to be appointed or that the results have to be announced regarding selection.” 14. The specific grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur had not followed the guidelines in changing the categorization to OC Women of the Fair Price Shop in question and that issuance of the subsequent notification without revoking the earlier notification is arbitrary, illegal and malafide. Certain other further averments were made that on the date of first notification, the third respondent was a minor and only with a view to accommodate her this method had been adopted. 15. As can be seen from the decision referred to supra, even if the specific stand taken in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is to be accepted, no enforceable legal right as such had been accrued in favour of the writ petitioner. Hence, the impugned action cannot be found fault since the same cannot be said to be illegal. 16. In the light of the same, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ P.S.Narayana, J Date: 30.01.2008 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked B/o va [1] 1997 (1) An.W.R.584