THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.6312 of 2009 Dated: 05..11..2009 Between: T.Premavathi Petitioner And The District Collector, Ananthapur And others. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.6312 of 2009 ORDER: 1 Pursuant to a notification calling for applications to fill up the F.P. Shop dealership of Gundiganipalli village of Brahmasamudram Mandal in Ananthapur District, the Petitioner, 5th Respondent and others have sent their applications. As the said post is reserved for physically handicapped, the appointing authority i.e. Revenue Divisional Officer, after conducting interviews and also verifying the documents, appointed the Petitioner herein as the F.P. Shop dealer of the said village vide his proceedings dated 10.11.2008. Challenging the said appointment of the Petitioner, the fifth Respondent filed an appeal before the Joint Collector and the Joint Collector while allowing the appeal, set aside the said appointment of the Petitioner by his order dated 19.01.2009. In the said order, the Joint Collector made an observation that the Petitioner herein committed fraud and produced a false physically handicapped certificate and thus recommended for initiation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner. As against the said order, the Petitioner approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition. 2 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Srinivas is that the medical certificate produced by the Petitioner was given by a competent civil surgeon bearing registration No.10826, Government General Hospital, Ananthapur and as per the said certificate the Petitioner is physically handicapped and the same is assessed at 70%. According to him, ignoring the said certificate issued by a competent civil surgeon, a false certificate produced by the fifth Respondent to establish that the Petitioner is not a physically handicapped person was taken into consideration and on that score alone the Joint Collector allowed the appeal. 3 Per contra, the learned counsel for the fifth Respondent submitted that in the light of the said controversy, the Joint Collector directed the civil surgeon by name Jagannath, who had allegedly given the said certificate to the Petitioner, to give statement and accordingly the said Doctor Jagannath appeared before the Joint Collector and gave a statement saying that he issued the said certificate basing on a Xerox copy and he did not examine the Petitioner physically at the time when he issued the said certificate and further the same was issued only for housing purpose. 4 All the above contentions advanced by the learned counsel are not necessary for the adjudication of the present Writ Petition for the reason that the Petitioner had already approached the revisional authority i.e. District Collector and filed a revision and the parties can as well advance the above arguments before the revisional authority. As it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the said revision was filed as early as in the month of January 2009, the District Collector has not passed any orders, this court is of the view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of with a direction to the revisional authority i.e. District Collector to dispose of the said revision as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending consideration of the said revision, the finding given by the Joint Collector i.e. with regard to the initiation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner shall be stayed. 5 The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ------------- 05.11.2009 kvsn