Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 648 (AP)

Dasari Seshamma v. District Collector

2015-08-26

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2015
ORDER : C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc. No. 2570/2012-G, dated 21.11.2012, of respondent No. 4, appointing respondent No. 5 as fair price shop dealer of Shop No. 84 of Guntur town on permanent basis, as illegal and in violation of G.O. Ms. No. 4, dated 19.02.2011. 2. I have heard Mr. K.L.N. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. B. Nagi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh) and Mr. K. Joseph, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. 3. In pursuance of the notification issued by respondent No. 4 for filling up the permanent vacancy of fair price shop dealer of Shop No. 84 of Guntur town, the petitioner, respondent No. 5 and one Sri Ram Ananda Rao have applied. Respondent No. 4 has conducted the written test as well as interviews. As per the results declared by the said respondent, Sri Ram Ananda Rao has secured 19.5 marks, the petitioner has secured 17 marks and respondent No. 5 has secured 14.5 marks in the written test. However, in the interview, respondent No. 5, who has secured the lowest marks in the written test, was awarded the highest marks and accordingly, he was appointed as fair price shop dealer of Shop No. 84 of Guntur town by respondent No. 4. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. 4. The main ground on which the petitioner has questioned the appointment of respondent No. 5 is that respondent No. 4 has acted in an arbitrary manner by awarding highest marks in the interview to respondent No. 5, though he has secured lowest marks in the written test and that, this clearly discloses the bias exhibited by respondent No. 4 towards respondent No. 5. 5. This Court in Jinka Chinna Tirupelaiah Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 2012(5) ALD 48 , while quashing G.O. Ms. No. 4, dated 19.02.2011, which provided for allocation of 50% of marks for the interview, in unequivocal terms held that the marks for the interview shall not exceed 20. Purporting to follow the said judgment, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O. Ms. Government of Andhra Pradesh 2012(5) ALD 48 , while quashing G.O. Ms. No. 4, dated 19.02.2011, which provided for allocation of 50% of marks for the interview, in unequivocal terms held that the marks for the interview shall not exceed 20. Purporting to follow the said judgment, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O. Ms. No. 39, dated 22.9.2012, whereby while not enhancing the marks for the written test, it has apportioned the 50% of marks earlier allocated for the interview by creating artificial heads such as financial strength, customer relations ability and managerial ability. When the said G.O. came to be challenged, this Court has struck down the same in M. Rajitha and others Vs. RDO, Warangal Town and District 2013(6) ALD 199 . Without mincing words, this Court in the said case inter alia held as under: Indeed, this Court has conclusively pronounced upon this aspect while examining the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 4, dated 19.2.2011. Short of quashing the said G.O., this Court in no uncertain terms has deprecated allocation of 50% of marks for interview under the said G.O. and has left it to respondent No. 1 to fix the marks for interview at 20 with the upper limit at 25. In all fairness, respondent No. 1 ought to have followed this judgment. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that the judgment of this Court in Jinka Chinna Tirupelaiah's case (supra) has been questioned in appeal. Far from that, respondent No. 1 has purported to follow the same by making a reference to it in G.O. Ms. No. 39, dated 22.9.2012. Respondent No. 1 seems to be labouring under a misnomer that if the allocated 50 marks for interview are divided under three different heads, the discretion of the appointing authority can be curtailed. In reality, allocation of marks under the three heads may not completely avoid arbitrariness and subjectivity of the appointing authority. For example, no guidelines have been prescribed as to how the appointing authority will assess and allocate the marks under the heads-Customer relations ability and Managerial ability. Each appointing authority will adopt his own method in allocating the marks under these two heads. Even for the head Financial strengths, for which 15 marks have been allocated, no operating guidelines have been issued. Each appointing authority will adopt his own method in allocating the marks under these two heads. Even for the head Financial strengths, for which 15 marks have been allocated, no operating guidelines have been issued. This Court shall not be understood as taking a view that with the operating guidelines, the allocation of 50% of marks for interview can be sustained. Either way, this Court is of the firm opinion that allocation of 50% of marks for interview is anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution of India which strikes at arbitrariness and ensures equality among its citizens. It also destroys fairness and transparency giving raise to unbridled discretion to the appointing authorities to select the persons of their choice. 6. Based on the above-mentioned reasons, this Court while quashing G.O. Ms. No. 39, dated 22.9.2012, directed the Government to fix the marks in accordance with the directive issued by it earlier, i.e., by fixing 20 marks for the interview while allotting 80 marks for the written test. 7. The impugned order in this Writ Petition was passed while the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 39, dated 22.9.2012, was under consideration of this Court and before the judgment in M. Rajitha and others (supra) was delivered. 8. It needs to be noted that while issuing notice before admission on 28.12.2012, this Court has directed to continue the arrangement which existed as on that date for distribution of essential commodities in respect of the fair price shop in question. As a consequence thereof, the appointment of respondent No. 5 did not come into effect. 9. Though technically speaking, G.O. Ms. No. 39, dated 22.9.2012, was in force when the impugned order was passed by respondent No. 4, but the said order being the subject matter of this Writ Petition, with the striking down of G.O. Ms. No. 39 in the interregnum, the very basis of the impugned order is removed. 10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies (Andhra Pradesh) has placed before this Court G.O. Ms. No. 10, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 28.5.2014, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in compliance with the Mandamus issued by this Court in M. Rajitha and others (supra) providing 80 marks for the written test and 20 marks for the interview. No. 10, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 28.5.2014, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in compliance with the Mandamus issued by this Court in M. Rajitha and others (supra) providing 80 marks for the written test and 20 marks for the interview. Therefore, in all fairness, the official respondents are bound to follow the said G.O. in the instant case, where the appointment of respondent No. 5 made based on the said G.O., is the subject matter of challenge. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. Respondent No. 4 is directed to conduct fresh interviews to all three individuals, including the petitioner and respondent No. 5 by following G.O. Ms. No. 10, dated 28.5.2014 and pass a fresh order within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP. No. 50797 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous.