Judgment : These three writ petitions can be disposed of as they raise common questions and also seek common relief. 2. The writ petitioners challenge the selection and appointment of the unofficial respondents as fair-price shop dealers of various fair price shops situate in Qutbullapur Municipal limits of Ranga Reddy District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, Hyderabad, issued a notification on 28.05.2010 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment as dealers of various fair-price shops situate in his revenue division. 48 fair-price shops were notified situate in various localities of Qutbullapur Municipality in Ranga Reddy District. There are four petitioners in W.P.No.33108 of 2010, 27 petitioners in W.P.No.14097 of 2011 and 19 petitioners in W.P.No.14659 of 2011. All of them make a bald assertion that they have applied for appointment as a dealer of fair-price shops notified in Qutbullapur municipality and that they were subjected to oral interview test on 08.06.2010. It is common ground that, inspite of faring well in the interview test, the petitioners were not selected for appointment as dealers and on the other hand, the selections were finalized due to the pressure exerted on the appointing authority by the local M.L.A and hence, the selections were arbitrarily finalized as per the dictates of the local M.L.A who acted for political considerations. It is also alleged that some of the selected candidates are closely related to the ward members of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. It is also stated that, the applications of the selected candidates, if scrutinized, would disclose a specific pattern by arranging them in a serial order commencing from C/2089/2010 to C/2135/2010. It is also alleged that the selected candidates have been adjusted after changing the reservation of the dealership suitably. It is also contended that the selections were finalized not based on any objective assessment, but is based on irrational approach of the appointing authority. 4. Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Kavita Yadav, learned counsel in W.P.No.33108 of 2010 and Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners in the other two writ petitions, and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Sri Bollam Lingaiah Yadav, learned counsel for the contesting unofficial respondents. 5. 4. Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Kavita Yadav, learned counsel in W.P.No.33108 of 2010 and Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners in the other two writ petitions, and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Sri Bollam Lingaiah Yadav, learned counsel for the contesting unofficial respondents. 5. The learned Government Pleader has pointed out that, very vague, bald and nonspecific allegations have been made by the petitioners as to how their non-selection and the corresponding selection of another fair-price shop dealer for the place where the petitioner has applied for is wrongful. It was also contended that, the allegation that the reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes has been altered subsequent to the notification is vague. On the other hand, the counter affidavit discloses as to how the candidates have been selected from the respective social segments for which the dealership was originally earmarked in the notification. The learned Government Pleader had further highlighted that, all the selected candidates have not been impleaded and even now, not even a single candidate was impleaded as a respondent in W.P.No.14097 of 20101 and hence, it will only be appropriate to dismiss these cases for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. It was also contended by the learned Government Pleader that, five of the petitioners in W.P.No.14097 of 2011 and W.P.No.14659 of 2011 have filed affidavits into this Court specifically alleging that they have never executed any vakalatnama for engaging the services of Sri C. Ramachandra Raju and that they have never subscribed their signatures in that regard on any papers filed into this Court and that they have no cause to approach this Court either as the selected candidates are closely related to them. It was also contended by the learned Government Pleader that, bald allegations are drawn against the Revenue Divisional Officer that he has succumbed to the pressure brought upon by the local M.L.A and the manner of the pressure brought upon on the Revenue Divisional Officer has not been specified, nor was the local M.L.A impleaded as a party respondent to these writ petitions. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that, when once an act of malice is attributed to a particular person, it is imperative that the person against whom the allegations are made should be impleaded as a party respondent. It is also contended by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioners have not seriously disputed that the Revenue Divisional Officer has carried out the selections based upon the performance of the candidates at the oral interview test. He, therefore, contends that these writ petitions may be dismissed. 6. Sri Bollam Lingaiah Yadav, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, while reiterating the contentions canvassed by the learned Government Pleader would add that the petitioners have chosen to make allegations against the local M.L.A and the Corporators of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation without impleading and thus providing them an opportunity to defend themselves. It was also contended by Sri Lingaiah Yadav that the selected candidates are alleged to be the Corporators themselves whereas, the selected candidate is only a member of a ward committee constituted. He, therefore, contends that the selections cannot be put in serious issue, on that score. 7. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel was candid enough to submit that the petitioners cannot seek to agitate any contention relating to the role played by the local M.L.A or the Corporators of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation without impleading them as party respondents to these writ petitions. However, Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners sought for time to implead the local M.L.A as a party respondent. Since the matter has already undergone several adjournments, I have not considered it appropriate any further to adjourn the matter for enabling the petitioners to implead the local M.L.A or the Corporators of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation who allegedly influenced the selection of their choicest candidates as fair-price shop dealers in Qutbullapur Mandal. In my opinion, at this distant point of time, the writ petitioners cannot be permitted to undertake the repair work, having not chosen to implead them at the first instance when they have chosen to attribute allegations of malice against them. 8. In my opinion, at this distant point of time, the writ petitioners cannot be permitted to undertake the repair work, having not chosen to implead them at the first instance when they have chosen to attribute allegations of malice against them. 8. I am also not inclined to take into consideration the contents of the affidavits filed by some of the petitioners in W.P.No.14097 and 14659 of 2011 alleging that they have not signed or executed any vakalatnama and that they have not taken any steps to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, for, Sri C. Ramachandra Raju has pointed out that he has not been served with copies of such affidavits in this writ petition but he was only served with copies of such affidavits in some other proceedings. I, therefore, consider that it will not be proper to deal with any such objection raised by the learned Government Pleader. 9. The factual basis which is laid by the petitioners can be described at best as bald and vague. It would be appropriate therefore to notice the factual basis laid in this regard. 10. The following is the statement made in W.P.No.33108 of 2010, in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the said writ petition. “2. I state that the 2nd respondent had issued a notification dated 28-05-2010 disclosing that the enumerated number of fair price shops would be filled up with the eligible persons by appointing them as fair price shop dealers and the said notification and the annexure have disclosed the number of fair price shop (newly created shops) and also the reservation in respect of the shops i.e. as to whether the specified number of shops is reserved/earmarked for O.C., B.C., S.C., S.T., P.H.C etc., In so far as the present writ petition is concerned, we are all interested in getting appointed as fair price shop dealers of the new shops that were notified in Qutbullapur Municipality. As per the said notification, 48 fair price shops were notified in respect of Qutbullapur Municipality and the notification has laid down the eligibility criteria of the persons who are interested to apply for appointment as fair price shop dealers. 3. As per the said notification, 48 fair price shops were notified in respect of Qutbullapur Municipality and the notification has laid down the eligibility criteria of the persons who are interested to apply for appointment as fair price shop dealers. 3. I state that all of us had applied for appointment as fair price shop dealers for the shops notified in Qutubullapur Municipality and we were subjected to an interview/selection (date of interview being 08-06-2010). I state that petitioners are reservation candidates belonging to Backward Class (B.C.). Since all of us had faired well in the interview, we were expecting that we would be appointed as fair price shop dealers.” 11. In paragraph 3 filed in support of the W.P.No.14097 of 2011, this is all what the writ petitioners have averred. “3. I submit that all of us had applied for appointment as fair price shop dealers for the shops notified in Qutubullapur Municipality as shown in the cause title and we were subjected to an interview/selection (date of interview being 08-06-2010). We belong to backward class and are entitled to be appointed under reserved category. As we fared well in the interview we were expecting that we would be appointed as fair price shop dealers.” Identical is the content of the averments in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.14659 of 2011. From a perusal of these averments, it becomes very clear that the petitioners have proceeded without specifying in any manner and with necessary clarity as to how the non-selection of each one of them is impaired. Similarly, the petitioners have made the following allegations: “5. From a perusal of these averments, it becomes very clear that the petitioners have proceeded without specifying in any manner and with necessary clarity as to how the non-selection of each one of them is impaired. Similarly, the petitioners have made the following allegations: “5. For instance Sl.Nos.2,4,5,6 with the corresponding fair price shop numbers discloses that when the said shops are earmarked for O.C., the selected candidates belong to B.C. Similarly Sl.Nos.7,9 when they are meant for PHC and ST, the selected candidates are B.C & O.C. The select list further discloses that while Sl.Nos.10, 11 and 12 are meant for O.C.s, the selected candidates are persons belonging to B.C. As regards Sl.no.13 which is meant for S.C., the selected candidate is O.C. In SlNo.14, while the reservation is for O.C., the selected candidate is B.C. Similarly at Sl.Nos.15,16,17 and 18 which are meant for O.Cs, the selected candidates belong to B.C. As regards Sl.No.19 which is meant for PHC, the selected candidate is B.C. As regards Sl.No.21 to 27 which are meant for O.C., the selected candidates are S.C, and four candidates belonging to B.C. (the compliance of O.C. category post been complied with as per Sl.No.27 in the select list). Similarly when Sl.Nos.28 to 30 is meant for PHC and O.C., the selected candidates belong to B.C. Similarly when Sl.No.31 of the select list is meant for O.C., the selected candidate is a B.C. Like wise as regards Sl.No.33 and 34 which are meant for O.Cs, the selected candidates belong to B.C. category.” The contents of this paragraph are once again repeated by the petitions in the other two cases. 12. If a particular vacancy is shown as ‘Un-reserved’ thereby indicating that it is not reserved in favour of any other social segment, the same is liable to be treated as “Open Competition” (O.C.). Any candidate, irrespective of his social status can compete against any such vacancy. In other words, candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Physically Challenged categories can also compete along with the others. If they can measure up, they can as well get selected. There is no conceivable prohibition against any such selection. Per contra, if a vacancy is reserved, let us say for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes, only such candidates belonging to the specified social sector can apply and compete. If they can measure up, they can as well get selected. There is no conceivable prohibition against any such selection. Per contra, if a vacancy is reserved, let us say for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes, only such candidates belonging to the specified social sector can apply and compete. The other candidates cannot compete against such reserved slot unless they belong to that particular category. It is crystal clear that the petitioners have not made out any strong case calling for interference of the Court demonstrating as to how a vacancy originally notified in favour of a particular reserved segment has been ultimately filled up with a candidate who does not belong to the said social segment or with a candidate belonging to open category. It is therefore unsafe to return any finding upon such loosely laid foundational facts. Further, each fair price shop is assigned a particular file number. Therefore, the file numbers are arranged in a serial number. Such a measure cannot be faulted. 13. Most importantly, all the petitioners have appeared for the selections. They have not challenged the selection process comprising of oral interview test. By their very statements, they have fared well, thus, the petitioners have obviously conveyed their satisfaction of the objectivity of the selection process. In an oral interview test, there cannot be a full proof record vouching for the actual performance of the respective candidates. The performance of the candidates is only assessed relatively. If someone else has fared much better than the writ petitioners, their selection cannot be faulted. 14. Sri Lingaiah Yadav is right in contending that, apart from selection of the candidates, each dealer has been issued with an appointment order and it was followed up by an authorization. The appointment and authorization of the selected candidates was never called in issue. When generalized statements are made, in support of the writ petition, it will be extremely difficult for the selected candidates to answer such non-specific allegations. Therefore, the selected candidates can only deny the averments and vouch for their selection based upon the relative assessment of their merit. 15. Finalization of selections based upon the interview test alone is not called an issue in these writ petitions. Oral interview tests may provide some scope for subjective satisfaction about the performance of the respective candidates. Therefore, the selected candidates can only deny the averments and vouch for their selection based upon the relative assessment of their merit. 15. Finalization of selections based upon the interview test alone is not called an issue in these writ petitions. Oral interview tests may provide some scope for subjective satisfaction about the performance of the respective candidates. There cannot be any record and yardstick to vouch for their performance, particularly when the mater relates to selection of a suitable candidate to be appointed as a fair-price shop dealer. The basic knowledge of the candidates with regard to the public distribution system and the intricacies involved therein can at best be the basis for assessment of the performance of candidates at the oral interview. The general awareness of the candidates and their knowledge in arithmetics can also reasonably form a basis for selection. Therefore in the absence of any specific allegation about the impropriety of the selection procedure, it would be hazardous to enter into a guess with regard to the relative merit of the candidates assessed at such oral interview tests and on that basis upend the selections. 16. The petitioners have also not made out a strong case indicating as to how the roster points in favour of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Physically Challenged categories which were originally notified have been subsequently altered conveniently to the benefit or advantage of the selected candidates. I therefore do not consider it appropriate to render any specific finding in that respect. 17. I therefore do not find any merit in these writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed, but however, without costs. Consequently, the WPMPS stand disposed of.