HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 25490 OF 2008 DATED 15TH NOVEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN Boyina Sree Devi …..Petitioner and Collector, Krishna District, at Machilipatnam And ors … Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 25490 OF 2008 ORDER: The Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Gudivada, Krishna District-third respondent issued notiﬁcation on 5.3.2008 calling applications from the eligible BC women candidates to ﬁll up the vacancy of the Fair Price Shop Dealer for Bommuluru village in Guidivada Mandal. Pursuant to the said notiﬁcation, four applications were ﬁled and interview was conducted on 2.4.2008. The petitioner and fourth respondent herein are the applicants out of the four candidates applied for the said post and attended interview. The third respondent selected the fourth respondent herein as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Bommalur village and issued proceedings dated 3.5.2008. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner ﬁled appeal before the Joint Collector, Krishna District, who dismissed the same by order dated 21.7.2008. Being not satisﬁed with the order of the second respondent dated 21.7.2008, the petitioner ﬁled revision petition before the ﬁrst respondent. The said revision petition was also dismissed by the revisional authority-ﬁrst respondent by order dated 30.10.2008. Hence, this Writ Petition. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the third respondent being the appointing authority shall pass orders of selection by giving appropriate marks for each candidate. It is further submitted that as per G.O. Ms. No. 53, dated 6.10.2003, the fourth respondent is not eligible to be appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer inasmuch as she is having substantial property for her livelihood. The respondents have ﬁled counter aﬃdavit denying all the allegations made by the petitioner in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the Writ Petition. In the counter, the respondents have categorically stated the manner in which the petitioner was selected for the post for Fair Price Shop Dealer and the appeal and revision ﬁled by the petitioner were disposed of. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not brought to the notice of this Court any Rules or Act which provides allocation of marks under diﬀerent heads at the interview test and the criteria for the interview test laid down by any such rules. It is for the interviewing body to take a general decision and to choose the appropriate method for selecting the candidates to the desired posts. There cannot be any magic formulae in these matters and Courts cannot sit in judgment over the methods employed by interviewing bodies unless it is proven or obvious that the method of selection was chosen with oblique motive. Further, there cannot be any rule of thumb regarding the precise weight to be given. It may vary from service to service according to the requirements of the service, and after verifying the minimum qualiﬁcations prescribed, the age group from which the selection is to be made, the body to which the task of holding the interview test is proposed to be entrusted and a host of other factors. It is a matter for determination by experts. The Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer stated that oral interviews were conducted as per G.O.Ms.No. 53, Consumer Aﬀairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 6.10.2003 and as per AP Public District System Control Order, 2001 and the appointing authority being satisﬁed with the candidature of fourth respondent, appointed her as Fair Price Shop Dealer. From the record, it is observed that the petitioner has ﬁled marks list issued by the Headmaster, Fr.Blanchi Girls High School, Gudiwada showing that she has passed SSC (Compartmental), however, she has not ﬁled marks list issued by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, whereas, the fourth respondent has ﬁled SSC Certiﬁcate/marks list issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh showing her pass in SSC. Therefore, in the interview conducted on 2.4.2008, the fourth respondent was found more qualiﬁed than the petitioner. In the counter aﬃdavit, it is stated that the fourth respondent is a white ration card holder and she belongs to below poverty line(BPL) category. It is further stated that the fourth respondent reported to have possessed an own house in 484 sq.yards of patta land and Ac.060 agricultural property and that her husband is a taxi driver; whereas, the petitioner reported to have possessed RCC building in Ac.0.05 cents and Ac.4.58 cets landed property. Therefore, when compared with the fourth respondent, the petitioner possessed more property than the petitioner. Even the contention of the petitioner that as per para 9(iii) of G.O.Ms.No. 53, dated 6.10.2003, preference shall be given to DWCRA groups in appointing Fair Price Shop Dealers, does not hold much water inasmuch as the petitioner and the fourth respondent applied for the said post in their individual capacities. Regarding the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner worked as a Fair Price Shop Dealer for the shop in question for some period till the date of notiﬁcation issued and hence she is entitled to be appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealer, it is to be seen that the third respondent has pointed out some irregularities in running the Fair Price Shop by the petitioner and another who is a member of DWCRA group and that originally the fair price shop of Bommuluru village was run by PACS, and when they were unable to run the shop, the said shop was temporarily allotted to petitioner, who is a member of Santhoshi Matha Swashakthi Sangam. Further, it is to be seen that merely because a temporary employee is continued for a time being, she would not be entitled to be made permanent merely on the strength of such continuance. For the forgoing, I am of the considered opinion that the lower appellate and revisional authorities have discussed in detail all the submissions raised by the petitioner. In view of the above and as no other grounds are urged, I do not see any illegality or inﬁrmity in the orders passed by the respondents selecting the fourth respondent as Fair Price Shop Dealer. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------------ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA DATED 15T H NOVEMBER, 2010. Msnro