THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26333 of 2010 Date:17.03.2011 Between: Vishnu Vardhan Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Mahabubnagar and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K. Venumadhav Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri Akkam Eshwar The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the order dated 07.10.2010 of respondent No.1, by which he has set aside the order dated 29.05.2010 of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The petitioner was an unsuccessful applicant for appointment as fair price shop dealer of Vaddeman Village, Bijinapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. By his order dated 09.09.2009, respondent No.3 appointed respondent No.4 as fair price shop dealer for the said village. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2. The main plea that was urged by the petitioner before respondent No.2 in the said appeal and was accepted by the latter was that respondent No.4 was beneficiary under Rajiv Yojana Sakthi scheme and thereby rendered himself ineligible for being appointed as fair price shop dealer under Clause 12 (xvii) of the guidelines of selection and appointment of fair price shop dealers contained in Annexure II under G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 18.12.2008. Respondent No.2 accordingly, while setting aside the appointment of respondent No.4, directed respondent No.3 to hold fresh interviews and make selection afresh. Assailing the said order, respondent No.4 filed a revision before respondent No.1. Respondent No.4 pleaded in the said revision that the loan availed by him was discharged, vide certificate dated 24.08.2010 and that therefore, the ineligibility, if at all, no longer subsists. He has further stated that the petitioner apart from working as Adarsha Rythu was involved in a criminal case which was pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nagarkurnool. Respondent No.1, by the impugned order, allowed the revision by setting aside the order of respondent No.2 and restored the order of respondent No.3 appointing respondent No.4 as fair price shop dealer. True it is that under the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 18.12.2008, the candidates who have been benefited under the Government schemes such as Gramodaya Pathakam, Khadi and Village industries Board etc., will not be appointed as fair price shop dealer. Even respondent No.1, in the impugned order, has given the finding that borrowing loan by respondent No.4 attracts ineligibility under the said G.O. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that apart from being involved in a criminal case, the petitioner is working as Adarsha Rythu which is also a beneficial scheme implemented by the State Government. The petitioner accordingly rendered himself ineligible for being appointed as fair price shop dealer. This necessarily follows that with his ineligibility, the petitioner loses locus to question the appointment of respondent No.4. Even assuming that in stricto sensu the latter has also suffered ineligibility, no other person who applied for appointment as fair price shop dealer and eligible for such appointment has questioned the appointment of respondent No.4. Even though the reasoning contained in the order of respondent No.1 is somewhat self-contradictory in the light of the above facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order as even if the appointment of respondent No.4 is set aside, that will not enure to the petitioner’s benefit in any manner. Ordinarily respondent No.4 should not have been appointed as fair price shop dealer as he has availed a loan. But considering the facts that the petitioner is equally ineligible, that between the petitioner and respondent No.4, the latter is preferable as the petitioner is having a criminal record apart from being a beneficiary under a Government scheme and respondent No.4 has repaid the loan amount, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of respondent No.1. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.33631 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th March, 2011 GHN