IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16453 of 2008 BETWEEN Smt. J. Sumathi. ... PETITIONER AND The Tahsildar, Satyavedu, Chittoor District and four others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y. NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES MR. V. VINOD REDDY FOR R5 The Court made the following order: ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 26.11.2007 passed in proceedings No.D.Dis.M/395/2007 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati appointing the fifth respondent as fair price shop dealer of Dasakuppam Village and also the order of the District Collector dated 25.02.2008 passed in proceedings No.D.Dis.C1/293/98 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 2. The dealership for fair price shop at Dasakuppam fell vacant due to resignation of the dealer – Smt. P. Rukumini, as she was selected as Aanganwadi worker in the year 1996. Thereafter, the vacancy was notified inviting applications, the petitioner was selected and appointed, as dealer of the aforesaid shop, by the RDO vide proceedings No.C/3124/96 dated 08.12.1996. The selection of the petitioner was challenged by one Smt. C. Vijayalakshmi - fourth respondent, before the Joint Collector, who by order dated 06.01.1998 vide proceedings D.Dis.S1/3306/97 has set aside the orders of the RDO with a direction to renotify the vacancy. Pursuant to the said order, fresh process was taken up and the fourth respondent was selected and appointed. Thereafter, in the year 2002, as the fourth respondent was elected as Sarpanch, she resigned for the dealership and as such, further notification was issued on 04.06.2007 and the fifth respondent was selected and appointed as a dealer. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a revision before the District Collector, being the revisional authority, against the orders of the Joint Collector setting aside her appointment and the said revision was also dismissed by order dated 25.02.2008 referred to above. 3. Mr. Y. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the fifth respondent, who is now selected as dealer, is not a native of Dasakuppam Village, as such, there is no reason to select her. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent submits that pursuant to the notification dated 04.06.2007 the petitioner did not apply and as such, she has no locus standi to question the appointment of the fifth respondent. He further submits that the petitioner has directly approached this Court without availing the alternative remedy of appeal and revision provided under the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that as the appointment of the petitioner was set aside by the appellate authority and further direction was issued for renotification, a fresh notification was issued and at first instance, the fourth respondent was appointed and as she was elected as Sarpanch, she resigned and thereafter, further notification was issued in which the fifth respondent came to be selected and there is no grievance for the petitioner to file this writ petition. 6. With reference to the above submissions made, it has to be noted that though the appointment of the petitioner is set aside by the appellate authority vide order dated 06.01.1998, the said order is not placed on record so as to know on what basis the appointment of the petitioner was set aside. Further, it is also to be noted that as the appellate authority has directed to renotify the vacancy it was open for the primary authority to issue fresh notification and to make selections. In that view of the matter, even the revisional authority by its order dated 25.02.2008 confirmed the order of the appellate authority by recording a finding that the fourth respondent was eligible for selection as she had passed X class and as per G.O.Ms.No.671 Food, Civil Supplies (CS.IV) Department dated 30.11.1996 a dealer shall have passed X class and only when there are no candidates with X class qualification, the other candidates with lower educational qualification can be considered. In view of the finding recorded by the revisional authority and in the absence of production of a copy of the order of the appellate authority, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the revisional authority dismissing the revision petition. 7. When the further notification was issued on 04.06.2007 the petitioner did not even respond, as such, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the order dated 26.11.2007, referred to above, appointing the fifth respondent. In any event, there is also no reason for the petitioner to approach this Court as much as there is an appeal and further revision provided against the order dated 26.11.2007. It is also to be noticed that after selection of the fifth respondent in the year 2007, she has been continuing as a dealer of the fair price shop. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality to interfere with the impugned orders dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner and also the selection of the fifth respondent pursuant to fresh selections made by the RDO. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J October 26, 2010 DSK