HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9348 of 2009 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantial relief:- “………… to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the order in Revision Case No.2/2008-S7, dated 24.07.2008 of the first respondent in confirming the order in A.C.D.Dis.No.66/2005-S7, dated 03.11.2007, of the second respondent in remanding the case to the third respondent to take further action by appointing the eligible candidate as fair price shop dealer of Ganapavaram Village, Nadendla Mandal, Guntur District, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently, to set aside the same.” The succinct facts of the case are as follows: - It is the case of the petitioner that consequent on cancellation of authorization of fair price shop dealership of one Smt T.Siva Kumari, in Ganapavaram Village, Nadendla Mandal, Guntur District, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nadendla Mandal, Guntur District, issued notification vide Rc.No.799/2005, dated 04.06.2005, inviting applications from the eligible OC women candidates to fill up the vacancies on permanent basis. The petitioner, respondent No.5 and another lady were the applicants. All the candidates were called for interview and the interview was held on 27.06.2005. The petitioner was selected and appointed. The selection of the petitioner was questioned by respondent No.5 by way of appeal before the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Guntur, who set aside the order of appointment of the petitioner on the sole ground that the intimation was given for interview on 27.06.2005, but in the appointment order of the petitioner, it was recorded that the interview was held on 22.06.2005. The said order is confirmed by the revisional authority i.e., the District Collector, by his order, dated 24.07.2008, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. It is the case of the petitioner that a typographical mistake occurred in the proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer with regard to the date of interview as 22.06.2005 instead of 27.06.2005. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 27.06.2005, the petitioner, respondent No.5 and another lady appeared for the interview. In that view of the matter, the mistake that occurred in the selection proceedings is not a ground to set aside the appointment of the petitioner. Though there is appearance on behalf of respondent No.5, there was no representation on her behalf, when the matter was taken up on 18.11.2011 and even today. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, submitted that in view of the mistake that occurred in the proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the appointment order of the petitioner was set aside by the appellate authority, which was confirmed by the revisional authority. A counter-affidavit is filed by the Joint Collector-the appellate authority, who has set aside the order of the primary authority. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed additional material papers along with the para-wise remarks sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer. In the para-wise remarks, a copy of which is obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it is clearly stated that interview was conducted on 27.06.2005 as per the call letters issued to the candidates. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner, respondent No.5 and another lady appeared to the interview on 27.06.2005. It was also stated that as the petitioner fared well in the interview, she was selected. However, in the proceedings, inadvertently the interview date was recorded as 22.06.2005 instead of 27.06.2005. It is further stated that it is purely a clerical mistake and that the appellate and revisional authorities did not appreciate the same properly. It is pertinent to note that it is not the case of respondent No.5 that the petitioner was not interviewed. When respondent No.5 was also interviewed and was given chance to consider her case, the mere clerical mistake that occurred in the proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer that interviews were held on 22.06.2005 is not a ground to set aside the selection of the petitioner. For no fault of the petitioner, she cannot be made to suffer or put at hardship. In that view of the matter, the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities are liable to be set aside. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order, dated 24.07.2008, in Revision Case No.2/2008-S7, passed by the first respondent- appellate authority, confirming the order, dated 03.11.2007, in A.C.D.Dis.No.66/2005-S7, of the second respondent- revisional authority, is hereby set aside. The selection and appointment of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer of Ganapavaram Village, Nadendla Mandal, Guntur District, is upheld. The respondents are directed to restore the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY 21st November 2011 DR