THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.18845 of 2011 BETWEEN: Gangula Chandra Sekhar …. PETITIONER And 1. The District Collector (CS), Nellore District, Nellore, and others. …. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioner: Smt. S. Nanda Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: G.P. for Civil Supplies Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu The Court made the following order: ORDER: The proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, the 2nd respondent herein in D.Dis.No.(C) 3276/2010, dated 8.06.2011 whereby the 4th respondent has been appointed as fair price shop dealer, is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner, who was an unsuccessful applicant. The 2nd respondent issued a notification dated 6.03.2010 calling for applications from physically handicapped persons for appointment of fair price shop dealer of shop No.4 of Ramannagaripalli H/o Madannagaripalli village, Kaluvoya Mandal, Nellore District. The petitioner and the 4th respondent, who are physically challenged persons – one with locomotor disability and the other deaf and dumb – applied for the said dealership. Both the candidates possessed equal educational qualifications of passing 10th class. The 2nd respondent conducted interview on 26.03.2010 and found that the performance of the 4th respondent was satisfactory and accordingly appointed him as the dealer by means of the impugned order. Hence the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Heard Smt. S. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. Smt. S. Nanda would contend that even though both the candidates are equally qualified for appointment, an obligation is cast on the appointing authority to appoint the most suitable person as a dealer. She would contend that a fair price shop dealer has huge responsibility in maintaining the fair price shop. The requirements of the job are complex in nature, which require proper communication with several agencies and cardholders in the process of procurement and distribution of essential commodities. The 4th respondent, who is deaf and dumb person, cannot bear exertions of the job and cannot discharge his duties because of his impaired hearing and disability to communicate. The counsel would further submit that the disability as it is, the 4th respondent could not have performed well in the interview and the finding of the 2nd respondent that the performance was satisfactory is unsustainable. The counsel would therefore submit that the petitioner, who is handicapped limping in his walk, is better suited. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader and Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the 4th respondent would support the impugned order contending that there is no disqualification for a deaf and dumb person for being appointed as a dealer. The job is not so complex which disable a deaf and dumb person from discharging his duties as a fair price shop dealer. The performance of the 4th respondent was assessed in the interview and found to be communicative, therefore he was rightly appointed. I have considered the aforesaid contentions. I am unable to accept the contention that a deaf and dumb person cannot discharge duties as a fair price shop dealer. Multitudes of individuals suffer from various types of physical handicaps and many of them have overcome the disability and achieved distinctions in various fields. Examples are galore where persons with amputated legs have achieved distinction as dancers, the deaf as composers, blind persons as distinguished musicians, singers and lawyers. No disability, be it physical or mental, has prevented in achieving distinction in various fields. Looking at the achievements of the disabled, any one with some comprehension would not say that a deaf and dumb person would be unfit or less equipped than a person with a disability of limping walk to do a small job as a distributor of essential commodities. Admittedly, the 4th respondent passed SSC examination and qualified for appointment. A dealer need not necessarily involve in verbal interaction with the cardholders while distributing commodities. All that necessary is that he should be able to weigh/measure the commodities and make necessary entries in the cards and the relevant records. No skill or expertise is required for the said purpose. Admittedly the 4th respondent is educationally qualified by passing 10th class, which is sufficient to do the said job. Therefore there is no basis for assuming that he could not have been properly assessed in the interview. As no other ground was canvassed, the only contention raised as above being without merits, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 28th September, 2011. Js. L.R. copy to be marked