APHC010603952017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 14641/2017 Between: 1. SHAIK RAMEEJA BEE, W/O.MOHAMMAD RASOOL AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS OCC:F.P.SHOP DEALER OF SHOP NO.23 R/O.HUSSAINAPURAM VILLAGE BANAGANIPALLE MANDAL KURNOOL DISTRICT, AP ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL, AP 3. THE SUBCOLLECTOR, NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, AP 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, AP 5. THE TAHSILDAR, HUSSAINAPURAM , BANAGANAPALLI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, AP 6. SHAIK SHAVALI, S/O.MAHABOOB BASHA AGED ABOUT 30 2 VS,J WP_14641_2017 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS R/O.HUSSAINAPURAM VILLAGE BANAGANAPALLI MANDAL KURNOOL DISTRICT, AP ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 4th respondent issued in Rc.No.(A)/2636/2015 dt.23-11-2016 as highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also without following reservation IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 18133 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To suspend the operation of the proceedings in Rc.No.(A)/ 2636/2015 dt.23-11-2016 issued by the 4th Respondent in appointing the 6th respondent as Fair Price Shop Dealer of F.P.Shop No.23 of Hussainapuram Village, Banaganapalle Mandal, Kurnool District A.P. pending disposal of the above writ petition IA NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP 18134 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to allow the petitioner to continue as F.P.Shop Dealer of Shop No.23 of Hussainapuram Village, Banaganapalle Mandal, Kurnool District A.P. pending disposal of the above writ petition IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to permit/receive counter copies on record by granting leave to the Respondent in the above writ petition and pass 3 VS,J WP_14641_2017 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. THOTA SUNEETHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K NAGA PHANINDRA 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: 4 VS,J WP_14641_2017 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 4th respondent issued in Rc.No.(A)/2636/2015 dt.23.11.2016 as highly, illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and also without following reservation.….” 2) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is a native of Hussainapuram Village, Banaganapalle Mandal, Kurnool District and she has been appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer (F.P.Shop Dealer) for shop No.23 on temporary basis vide proceedings RC No.A/327/10 dated 11.10.2010. From the date of appointment the petitioner herein has been discharging her duties as F.P.Shop dealer without any complaints and distributing essential commodities to the card dealers. 3) While so, respondent No.3 issued the impugned notification in RC No.A/2636/2015, dated 13.11.2015, inviting applications to fill up the vacancies on permanent basis. The petitioner being the existing F.P.Shop dealer also applied for the vacancy at F.P.Shop, Hussainapuram, Banaganapalle Mandal, Kurnool District. She has been issued Hall Ticket No.102247 by respondent No.4 and attended for written examination which has been conducted on 31.07.2016 and also attended oral interview. 5 VS,J WP_14641_2017 4) It is the further case of the petitioner that she came to know that for the shop being run by the petitioner, due to political pressure, one Shaik Shavali, respondent No.6 herein was appointed as F.P.Shop dealer for F.P.Shop No.23 Hussainapuram Village, by respondent No.4 vide RC No.(A)/2636/2015 dated 23.11.2016. As respondent No.6 belongs to ruling party, there is a clear political motive in appointing respondent No.6 as F.P.Shop dealer, who has not even applied for the same. Clause 4 and 5 of G.O.Ms.No.52 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CSI) Department dated 18.12.2008, prescribed the eligibility criteria and the minimum general educational qualifications for selection and appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealers. Though the petitioner herein fulfills all the requisite criteria as mandated under the said Rules, to the utter surprise, official respondents selected respondent No.6 without even giving the weightage to the petitioner’s experience. Hence, the writ petition. 5) Respondent No.4 filed counter contending that the petitioner herein was appointed as F.P. shop dealer for F.P. shop No.23 purely on temporary basis by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal vide proceedings Rc.No.A/327/10 dated 11.10.2010 till the vacancy is filled up on permanent basis duly following the procedure. Later, on 13.11.2015 the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal issued notification Rc.No.A/2636/2015 dated 13.11.2015 duly inviting applications for filling up the vacancy of the F.P.Shop No.23 of Hussainapuram village, Banaganapalli Mandal on permanent basis, which was being run by the petitioner on temporary basis. 6 VS,J WP_14641_2017 6) In pursuance of which, respondent No.6 applied for the same, attended written examination, and as well as interview, wherein he was selected and appointed as F.P.Shop dealer for Shop No.23 of Hussainapuram village, purely on merit basis without any political interference as alleged by the petitioner herein. 7) The allegation made by the petitioner that the appointment of the F.P.Shop dealer was made on ‘pick and choose’ method is totally false and baseless as all the vacancies of F.P.Shops arose in Nandyal Revenue Division were filled up on permanent basis by issuing notification and duly following the clauses 4 and 5 of G.O.Ms.No.52. The F.P. Shop dealer who was appointed purely on temporary basis would not get any absolute right for claiming the said post in the notification issued to fill up the same on permanent basis and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 8) During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was appointed as F.P. shop dealer on 11.10.2010 on temporary basis and she has been discharging her duties without any lapses on her part. Later, in pursuance of the notification dated 13.11.2015, respondent No.6 was appointed as F.P.shop dealer for shop No.23 on permanent basis. Further, the appointment of respondent No.6 as F.P.shop dealer for shop No.23 is illegal and arbitrary as he was appointed by adopting ‘pick and choose’ method only to target the petitioner herein 9) Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies contended that respondent No.6 was appointed as F.P.shop dealer for shop No.23 at Hussainapuram village only on merit basis, in pursuance of the notification dated 13.11.2015 and the petitioner 7 VS,J WP_14641_2017 herein, who is temporary shop dealer would not get any right to be appointed as permanent dealer unless and until he is selected through the notification issued by the authorities, and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 10) Petitioner herein has admitted in her affidavit that she was appointed as F.P.Shop dealer on temporary basis for shop No.23 of Hussainapuram village vide proceedings Rc.No.A/327/10 dated 11.10.2010. While so, respondent No.3 issued impugned notification in RC No.A/2636/2015 dated 13.11.2015. In pursuance of which, the petitioner and as well as respondent No.6 applied for the same along with others, wherein respondent No.6 was qualified in the written examination, interview and as such appointed as F.P. shop dealer for shop No.23 of Hussainapuram village on permanent basis. 11) To prove that respondent No.6 appeared for written test in pursuance of notification dated 13.11.2015, respondents filed hall ticket bearing No.102246 and list of candidates selected for interview for selection of F.P.Shop dealers in Nandyal division. 12) On perusal of the Hall ticket Number 102246 issued by then Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal it is clear that the petitioner appeared for examination conducted on 31.07.2016. Further, the name of respondent No.6 was shown at serial number 138 in the list of candidates selected for interview for selection of F.P. shop dealers in Nandyal Division. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.6 has not even applied for shop No.23 and not appeared for the examination is baseless and the same is hereby rejected. 8 VS,J WP_14641_2017 13) Further, from the notice dated 28.10.2016 showing the names of candidates provisionally selected in interviews conducted on 17.09.2016 issued by the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, it is evident that respondent No.6, whose name was shown at serial No.38, was selected Fair Price Shop dealer on permanent basis. Thereafter, vide proceedings R.C.No.(A)2636/2015 dated 23.11.2016 respondent No.6 was appointed him as F.P.Shop dealer for shop No.23, Hussainapuram village, Banaganapalli Mandal and was directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- as Security Deposit along with authorization fee of Rs.500/-. In pursuance of which, respondent No.6 was appointed as F.P.Shop dealer for Shop No.23. 14) Though, it is the grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition that the respondents have selected/appointed respondent No.6 as a permanent dealer for shop No.23, Hussainapuram village without even there being any application submitted by respondent No.6 in pursuance of the notification issued by the respondents on 13.11.2015, however, as per the documents furnished by the respondents, it is proved that respondent No.6 has applied for the post of permanent dealership in pursuance of the notification issued by the respondents, appeared for the examination conducted on 31.07.2016, and he was got qualified in the said examination and selected for the interview, thereafter, he was being appointed as permanent dealer for the shop No.23. In view of the fact that the respondents have appointed respondent No.6 after following due procedure in pursuance of the notification issued by the respondents, this Court does not find any illegality in selecting respondent No.6. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9 VS,J WP_14641_2017 15) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 16) Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 11.09.2025 Ksp