APHC010031192024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1745/2024 Between: 1. PENUMUCHA POORNIMA, D/O KANAKADURGA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O BOSE BOMMA CENTER, TADEPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COLLECTOR, (CIVIL SUPPLIES), GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. MEKAPADMA, FAIR PRICE SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO. 0711014, TADEPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT ...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 to issue a Writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in appointing Respondent no. 5 as fair shop dealer vide proceedings in Rc No. 5132/2016- B (Sh.l4) dt. 30-08-2018 as confirmed by the 2ND Respondent in appeal no. 2 VS,J W.P.No.1745 of 2024 60/2018-S7 dated 07-10-2023 in Respect of Shop no. 0711014 situated in Tadepalli (Town) AND (M), Guntur district is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principle of natural justice and consequently set aside the same order and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES (AP) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.1745 of 2024 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in appointing Respondent No.5 as fair shop dealer vide proceedings in Rc No. 5132/2016-B (Sh.l4) dated. 30.08.2018 as confirmed by the 2nd Respondent in appeal No.60/2018-S7 dated 07.10.2023 in Respect of Shop No. 0711014 situated in Tadepalli (Town) & (M), Guntur district is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principle of natural justice and consequently set aside the same.…” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a) In pursuance of the notification issued by the respondents to fill up the vacancy of Fair Price Shop No.071104, Tadepalli Village and Mandal, on a regular basis, applications were invited from eligible candidates belonging to the OC(General) category. The petitioner and two other candidates submitted applications within the stipulated time and appeared for the written examination conducted on 30.10.2017. The said candidates secured 70, 69 and 42 marks out of 80 marks, respectively, and were shortlisted for an interview conducted on 10.11.2017. The marks secured were as follows: Sl. No. Name of the candidate Marks obtained A B C D Total 1. Meka Padma 70 3 4 7 84 2. Penumucha Poornima 69 3 3 5 80 3. Thotakura Venkateswaramma 42 3 3 4 52 4 VS,J W.P.No.1745 of 2024 b) Based on the selection process conducted by the 2nd respondent, the 5th respondent/Smt.Meka Padma, who secured the highest marks, was appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer vide proceedings in Rc.No.5132/2016B(sh.14) dated 30.08.2017. Aggrieved by the said appointment, the petitioner filed W.P.No.36514 of 2018, which was disposed of by this Court on 08.10.2018, granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the 2nd respondent. c) Pursuant to the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. As the 2nd respondent did not choose to dispose of the appeal, the petitioner again filed W.P.No.14278 of 2021 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 18.08.2023, directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from today i.e., 18.08.2023. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed orders dismissing the appeal vide order dated 07.10.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has furnished a copy of instructions of the Sub-Collector(i/c), Tenali, vide Rc.No.1273/2023-E, dated 04.10.2025, wherein it is stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur conducted the written test and oral interview for the three candidates, and the 5th respondent 5 VS,J W.P.No.1745 of 2024 secured the highest marks and was accordingly appointed as Fair Price Shop dealer of Shop No.0711014 on a permanent basis vide proceedings dated 30.08.2018, following due procedure. It is further submitted that the petitioner was given an opportunity to file an appeal and accordingly the petitioner filed the same before the Joint-Collector, Guntur. After hearing both parties and perusing the entire material on record, the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal filed vide order dated 07.10.2023. It is also submitted that the 5th respondent has been running the shop since the date of her appointment and is supplying essential commodities to the cardholders regularly. Moreover, it is brought to the notice of the Court that under Clause 24(e) of the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018, a remedy is available to the petitioner to prefer a revision petition before the District Collector, Guntur against the orders passed by the Joint Collector, Guntur. However, instead of availing the said remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the appointment of the 5th respondent was made by following due process of selection and based on merit and also that the petitioner was given an opportunity to file an appeal and the same was duly considered and dismissed by the competent authority. Further, instead of availing the statutory remedy of filing a revision under Clause 24(e) of the A.P. STPDS (Control) Order, 2018, the petitioner has directly filed the present writ petition. 6 VS,J W.P.No.1745 of 2024 6. In these circumstances, this Court does not find any procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice in the selection and appointment of the 5th respondent. 7. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 08.10.2025 KGR