ORDER : 1. In W.P.No.4065 of 2025, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus calling for records from the 4 th respondent with regard to the selection process and appointment of respondents 5 to 56 as Fair Price Shop Dealers of Sircilla Mandal vide selection list dt.23.09.2024 at 9.45 PM issued by the 4 th respondent pursuant to the Notification No.F/737/2024 and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, malafide on account of lack of transparency, as biased and ultra vires of G.O.Ms.No.20, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I-CCS) Department, dt.06.09.2018 and also the provisions of the Telangana Sate Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and as unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the same and to further direct respondents 1 to 3 to conduct the entire process afresh strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018 pursuant to the Notification No.F/737/2024 dt.29.08.2024 and to pass such other order or orders. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of W.P.No.4065 of 2025 are that the 4 th respondent has issued Notification No.F/737/2024 on 29.08.2024 calling for eligible candidates to be appointed as Fair Price Shop Dealers. The eligibility criteria and the procedure for selection/examination were provided in the Notification itself. The petitioner claims to have applied for Serial No.24 Fair Price Shop of Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District i.e., Fair Price Shop No.3908035. The examination was conducted for 80 marks with General Knowledge and Arithmetic questions and the candidates who secured 32 marks out of 80 marks were to be called for viva voce in the ratio of 1:5 for 20 marks. It is submitted that the result of the written examination was not declared and the petitioner came to know through some source that some people were called for interviews on 20.09.2024, 21.09.2024 and 23.09.2024 without declaring the results of the written test and the list of selected candidates was released on 23.09.2024 at about 9.45 PM. It is submitted that the result of the written examination was not declared and the petitioner came to know through some source that some people were called for interviews on 20.09.2024, 21.09.2024 and 23.09.2024 without declaring the results of the written test and the list of selected candidates was released on 23.09.2024 at about 9.45 PM. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the official respondents have not followed the prescribed procedure and have called the candidates of their choice for interview over Mobile/WhatsApp in a haphazard manner and even the ratio of calling for interview, i.e., 5 candidates for every dealership was not followed and that the people who were picked and chosen were on account of their political allegiance at the helm of affairs were called for interview and were selected and therefore, the selection process was not transparent and as per the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018. Further, alleging that several malpractices have taken place in the selection process, W.P.No.4065 of 2025 has been filed. 3. W.P.No.27902 of 2024 has been filed challenging the selection and appointment of respondents 5 to 8 as Fair Price Shop Dealers of Sircilla, Pedduru, Mustipalli and Chinna Bonala with respect to four Fair Price Shops No.3908035, 3908049, 3908046 and 3908047 respectively as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and also seeking a direction to the official respondents to conduct the entire process afresh strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Telangana State Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016 with regard to the selection and appointment of fair price shop dealers pursuant to the Notification No.F/737/2024 dt.29.08.2024 issued by the 4 th respondent. 4. W.P.No.27794 of 2024 also has been filed challenging the selection and appointment of respondents 5 to 8 as Fair Price Shop Dealers of Sircilla, Pedduru, Mustipalli and Chinna Bonala with respect to Fair Price Shop Nos.3908035, 3908049, 3908046 and 3908047 respectively as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and also seeking a direction to the official respondents to conduct the entire process afresh strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Telangana State Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016 with regard to the selection and appointment of fair price shop dealers pursuant to Notification No.F/737/2024 dt.29.08.2024 issued by the 4 th respondent. 5. 5. W.P.No.27396 of 2024 has been filed challenging the selection and appointment of respondent No.6 as Fair Price Shop Dealer of Indira Nagar, Thangalapalli with respect to Fair Price Shop No.3909026 as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and also to conduct the entire process afresh strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Telangana State Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016 with regard to the selection and appointment of fair price shop dealers in pursuance of Notification No.F/737/2024 dt.29.08.2024 issued by the 4 th respondent. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners reiterated that the official respondents have not followed the selection process as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018. He pointed out the following infirmities and inconsistencies in conducting the selection process: (1) That Clause 2 of the said G.O. states that the written test must be conducted on the information relating to existing Public Distribution System; (2) That the syllabus prescribed for the examination under Clause 2 of G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018 was on the existing Public Distribution System and the records to be maintained by the Fair Price Shop Dealer to know whether the applicant is aware of the functioning of the Public Distribution System in the State and whether he can function effectively for the implementation of the Public Distribution System and other general issues. He submitted that in spite of the above requirements, the examination was conducted on General Knowledge and Arithmetic which is not the prescribed syllabus. He further submitted that the Notification did not mention as to whether the examination would be in objective or subjective manner and therefore, there was no clarity in the Notification and this was done only to enable the official respondents to select the candidates of their choice; (3) That it is the 4 th respondent who has solely conducted all the stages of selection, i.e., he set the paper, conducted the examination, conducted the interviews and also declared the results and therefore, there was no transparency in the selection process and there was every possibility of bias and misuse of powers in the process. He submitted that there was no merit in the selection process adopted by the official respondents; (4) That the result of the written examination was not declared and interviews were held by calling the candidates for interview over phone and there was no criterion for holding the interviews. He submitted that there was no merit in the selection process adopted by the official respondents; (4) That the result of the written examination was not declared and interviews were held by calling the candidates for interview over phone and there was no criterion for holding the interviews. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the candidates were required to mention their name, hall ticket number, their phone number, address on the answer sheet, which, according to him, demonstrates that there was no secrecy maintained on the identity of the person who was writing the examination and it gave an impression of selecting a person by looking at their name, caste, creed and without giving any credence to their merit; (5) That results were declared on 23.09.2024 at 9.45 PM and appointment orders were issued to the candidates at the same time without verifying the antecedents or the certificates of the allegedly successful candidates. He submitted that the 4 th respondent has flouted the relevant guidelines only to accommodate and select the candidates of his choice or as per the direction of political dispensation. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the following judgments on the manner in which the competitive examinations should be conducted. (1) Jinka Chinna Tirupelaiah and others Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2012 (5) ALD 48 : 2012 (4) ALT 189 (2) Raj Kumar and others Vs. Shakti Raj and others , 1997 Supreme (SC) 243 (3) Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. The International Airport Authority of India and others , AIR 1979 SC 1628 (4) Mandeep Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, Civil Appeal No.........of 2025 in SLP (Civil) Nos. 23141 of 2024 & 907 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025 (5) The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Vs. A.B. Natarajan and others , (2014) 14 SCC 95 Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the selection process adopted by the official respondents is flawed and is not in accordance with the rules framed therefor. Therefore, the entire selections have to be set aside with a direction to re-conduct the examination. 7. A.B. Natarajan and others , (2014) 14 SCC 95 Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the selection process adopted by the official respondents is flawed and is not in accordance with the rules framed therefor. Therefore, the entire selections have to be set aside with a direction to re-conduct the examination. 7. Learned Advocate General appearing for the official respondents, supported the averments of the 4 th respondent in his counter affidavit and supported the conduct of examination and selection of the candidates on the following grounds: (i) That the Notification has been issued in accordance with the rules and the candidates were required to submit their applications for a particular shop and that the petitioners in all the Writ Petitions have participated in the examination willingly and only when they realised that they were unsuccessful in qualifying in the written examination, they are challenging the Notification in these Writ Petitions, which cannot be permitted; (ii) That the written examination was in objective mode having multiple choice answers, thus eliminating any scope of bias as alleged by the petitioners; (iii) That the examination was conducted in a fair and transparent manner and the answer sheets were evaluated by the Revenue officials who were allotted duties by the 4 th respondent in accordance with the key paper and followed secrecy and integrity during evaluation of answer sheets and that the very same mode of examination is being followed for the past several years and therefore, there was no bias and no malafides cannot be attached to the mode adopted for conducting the examination pursuant to the concerned Notification; (iv) That the recruitment of Fair Price Shop Dealers is done at RDO level and therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Vs. A.B. Natarajan and others (supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of this case; (v) That the petitioners in W.P.No.4065 of 2025 and W.P.No.27396 of 2024 did not even qualify in the written examination, i.e., they did not secure 32 marks out of 80 marks and therefore, they were not qualified to be called for interview as well; (vi) That the results were to be declared for 100 marks, i.e., after conducting of interview, and therefore, the result was declared and displayed on 23.09.2024 after considering the marks secured in the written examination as well as the interview. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar and others , (2010) 12 SCC 576 . (vii) That the selected candidates have been discharging their functions from October, 2024 onwards and therefore, the petitioners have approached the Court with delay of 5 months and therefore, these Writ Petitions are not maintainable especially when third party interests have also been created. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrinoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others , 2024 SCC OnLine 551. (viii) That though the petitioners have been alleging that the entire selection was done in a malafide manner, but such allegations are not supported by any credible evidence. He submitted that the burden of proving the malafides rests on the person making such allegations and in the present case, the petitioners have failed to do so. It is submitted that the petitioners are trying to make a roving enquiry into the matter which is not permissible as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir , (2023) 17 SCC 147 wherein it was held that the scope and extent of judicial review of a selection process and results is limited and that the Court has no such expertise to scrutinise the merits of the candidates; (ix) As regards the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Vs. A.B.Natarajan and others (supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, he submitted that it is distinguishable on facts as it was with regard to appointment of Group I officers and the purpose and pattern of the examination is different. He stated that in this batch of Writ Petitions, all the candidates adhered to the same format in answering the question and the written examination was conducted on objective basis eliminating any scope of bias. He further submitted that the Civil Supplies Task Force Team conducted a routine inspection on 25.09.2024 and verified the documents including the answer sheets relating to the present selection process and expressed their satisfaction about the recruitment process and therefore, there were no irregularities committed in the conduct of the examination. The learned Advocate General has also furnished copies of some of the question and answer papers of the relevant examination to demonstrate to this Court that the examination has been conducted in a fair and transparent manner. As regards the allegation that the appointment orders were given in the night of 23.09.2024, it is submitted that after declaring the result, the appointment orders were sent to the office of the Tahsildar on the same day, but as the Tahsildr and his staff were engaged in electoral works, they worked till late in the evening hours and therefore, selected persons took their appointment orders at night by requesting them. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 8. Learned counsel representing the unofficial respondents 5 to 56 in W.P.No.4065 of 2025 have also filed their counter affidavits and also written submissions to support the stand of the 2 nd respondent and it is stated: (i) That the examination has been conducted in accordance with the method prescribed under the Notification and G.OMs.No.20 dt.06.09.2018; (ii) That the petitioners, having participated in the exam, cannot challenge the exam only because they were unsuccessful in the exam; (iii) That the petitioner in W.P.No.4065 of 2025 had applied for shop No.3908035, where as respondents 11 and 12 were appointed to shop Nos.3903028 and 3903027 respectively and therefore, he cannot challenge the appointment of respondents 11 and 12 and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed against these respondents. 9. 9. The learned counsel for respondents 53 and 57 also relied upon the averments in the counter affidavits of the respective respondents and supported the stand of the 4 th respondent. 10. (a) Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the Notification has been issued for selection and appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealers to various fair price shops in the District of Rajanna Sircilla. The candidates were required to make their applications to the respective shops to which they are eligible as per their residence. (b) In these Writ Petitions, the question is whether the prescribed procedure has been followed for selection of candidates. This Court finds that initially, G.O.Ms.No.4, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (C.S.I) Department, dt.19.02.2011 provided the guidelines as a policy measure for appointment of fair price shop dealers. As per the said G.O., the written examination was to be conducted for 50 marks (out of which 20 marks were the qualifying marks for interview) and the balance 50 marks were earmarked for interview. This method of allocating 50 marks for interview was challenged in W.P.No.3553 of 2012 and batch and the A.P. High Court (as it then was), vide orders dt.24.02.2012, has directed the State Government to revise the policy guidelines under G.O.Ms.No.4 dt.19.02.2011 by appropriately fixing the maximum marks for the oral interview test and not to finalise the selection of dealers till the revised guidelines are formulated and communicated to the appointing authorities. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018 was issued with revised guidelines and only such of the candidates who have secured 32 marks out of 80 marks in the written examination were held to be eligible to be called for an interview in the ratio of 1:5. Para 1.4 of the G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018 prescribes that the RDO/Sub-Collector in other than GHMC area and District Civil Supplies Officer, Hyderabad, Medchal and Ranga Reddy Districts having GHMC area shall be the appointing authority and shall notify the Fair Price Shop vacancies as per roster. (c) Having observed that G.O.Ms.No.20 prescribed the guidelines for selection of the Fair Price Shop dealers, for adjudication of these Writ Petitions, the first and foremost question to be decided in these Writ Petitions is their maintainability, when the petitioners have knowingly and willingly participated in the selection process. For proper appreciation of the case, relevant provisions have to be examined. For proper appreciation of the case, relevant provisions have to be examined. The mode of the selection is prescribed under Paras 2 and 3 of the G.O. as under: “2. WRITTEN TEST, INTERVIEW AND SELECTION:- The appointing authority shall conduct a written test generally on the existing PDS and the records to be maintained by the Fair Price Shop dealer to know whether the applicant is aware of the functioning of the Public Distribution System in the State and whether he can function effectively in the implementation of the PDS and other general issues. The written examination shall be for (80) marks. After the test is conducted, the qualified candidates who score (32) and above out of (80) marks shall be called for viva voce interview on a date indicated by the Appointing Authority. The ratio between the vacancy proposed to be filled and the candidates to be invited for interview shall be 1:5. However, if the candidates qualified in the written test are less than 5, the Appointing Authority may confine the ratio to the exact number of qualified candidates in the written test. If the qualified candidates in the written test are more than 5, it shall be restricted to 5 only based on the marks from highest in the descending order. The Appointing Authority shall cause service of letters calling upon all the eligible applicants for an interview duly indicating the date, time and venue of interview. Selection shall be made on the basis of interviews conducted by the Appointing Authority purely on merit to be determined on the basis of the minimum general educational qualifications of the candidates and other criteria indicated in the foregoing paras and in the Telangana State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The interview shall be for (20) marks. After the interview is completed, the list of the candidates qualified bases on the highest marks shall be declared eligible for appointment after due verification of the antecedents and other process as prescribed in this order. The appointing authority shall not entertain any favour nor shall yield to any influence from political, official and any persons and shall act impartially in the selection of the candidates. The candidate carrying the recommendations from any sources shall be disqualified for the interview / selection. 3. The appointing authority shall not entertain any favour nor shall yield to any influence from political, official and any persons and shall act impartially in the selection of the candidates. The candidate carrying the recommendations from any sources shall be disqualified for the interview / selection. 3. VERIFICATION OF ANTECEDENTS: The appointing authority shall verify the antecedents of the selected candidates through the records in his office. The Appointing Authority shall also get clearance report from the Tahsildar concerned about any punishment or involvement of the selected candidates in any case under various laws or under any of the orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or his / her relationship with any business or ex-dealers or government employees etc.” From the above, it can be seen that the prescribed syllabus is “the rules regarding Public Distribution System and other subjects”, whereas in this case, para 17 of the notification mentioned that the examination will be held for “general knowledge and arithmetic”. Therefore, the prescribed syllabus was apparently not considered for conduct of the examination, but the petitioners, in spite of having knowledge of the syllabus mentioned in the notification willingly participated in the examination without any protest or demur except for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.27902, 27794 and 27396 of 2024 who have taken this objection in the Writ Petitions. However, when they did not object to the same at the time of examination or immediately thereafter, i.e., before the declaration of results, they cannot now challenge the same subsequently, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra). The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder. “ 39. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence.” Further also, in the case of Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar and others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “ 16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner’s name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712: (1995) 29 ATC 603, Marripati Nagaraju v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 11 SCC 522 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 68, Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 4 SCC 171 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 1005, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 SCC 227 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 627 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines, (2009) 3 SCC 227 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 627.” Therefore, the challenge to the selection on the ground of prescribed syllabus not being followed is rejected. 11. The next ground raised is that when the notification did not mention whether the paper would be objective or subjective, the objective examination is not justified and cannot be considered as fair and transparent. 11. The next ground raised is that when the notification did not mention whether the paper would be objective or subjective, the objective examination is not justified and cannot be considered as fair and transparent. It is noticed that neither G.O.Ms.No.20 nor the notification dt.29.08.2024 mentioned the mode of examination and the petitioners have also not protested about the same at the time of examination. Therefore, for the reasons given in the above para 10, this ground also is rejected. 12. The next ground raised is that the candidates, who have secured 32 marks out of 80 marks, were required to be called for interview in the ratio of 1:5 and therefore, the result of the written examination has to be announced, but was not done in this case and therefore, the prescribed procedure has not been followed. It is submitted that the written exam was conducted on 15.09.2024 and without declaring the results and without issuing the interview letters, candidates were called for interviews. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the prescribed procedure has not been followed. This Court finds that though the results of the written examination may not be announced, the official respondents have to make a list of all the eligible candidates to be called for interview and thereafter call them for interview by issuing letters mentioning the venue, date and time. The interviews were allegedly conducted on 20.09.2024 and 21.09.2024 by calling the candidates over phone and the results were declared on 23.09.2024 and appointment letters were also issued on the same day admittedly at night 9.45 PM without even verification of the documents of the successful candidates. Therefore, it is apparently not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the G.O. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held that in conduct of competitive examinations, there has to be transparency. The name and other details of the candidates cannot be known to the examiner. In this case, the answer sheets contained not only the name and address of the candidates but also the phone numbers of the candidates which would enable the examiner and evaluator to know the identity of the candidate and enable them to contact the candidates. Thus, the probability/possibility of bias or malpractice on account of the same cannot be ruled out. Thus, the probability/possibility of bias or malpractice on account of the same cannot be ruled out. Further, from the answer sheets of the candidates filed by the learned Advocate General, it is seen that the answer sheets do not contain the signatures of the Invigilators and the answer paper did not contain the questions but only contained the options to answers to be written on the answer sheet. This also creates a doubt about the transparency in the conduct of the examination. There is every chance or possibility of manipulating the answers written on the answer sheet. When the answer sheets of Nalgonda District, Sangareddy District and Nizamabad District are compared, this Court found that there is no uniformity. In the Districts of Nalgonda and Sangareddy and Banswada of erstwhile Nizamabad District, the answer sheets contained the questions as well as the options of answers, whereas in Rajanna Sircilla District, to which these writ petitioners belong to, the answer sheet did not contain the questions and the options, but the answers are obtained on a separate sheet. Further, the answer script of Adepa Shiva Prasad, i.e., the petitioner in W.P.No.4065 of 2025 did not even contain the signature of the Invigilator. Therefore, it is clear that the official respondents are not following a uniform procedure for conduct of the examination in all the Districts in the State of Telangana. Further, as regards the syllabus, the official respondents cannot deviate from the syllabus prescribed in the Notification and conduct the examination for arithmetic which is not the prescribed syllabus and totally ignore the relevant subject of Public Distribution System. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its recent judgment in the case of Mandeep Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (supra), has held as under: “ 52. The State and its instrumentalities have a duty and responsibility to act fairly and reasonably in terms of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. Any decision taken by the State must be reasoned, and not arbitrary. This Court has consistently held that when a thing is done in a post-haste manner, mala fides would be presumed, and further that anything done in undue haste can also be termed as arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law. We may refer here to a few judgments of this Court which lay down this proposition. 53. This Court has consistently held that when a thing is done in a post-haste manner, mala fides would be presumed, and further that anything done in undue haste can also be termed as arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law. We may refer here to a few judgments of this Court which lay down this proposition. 53. In Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab (2010) 11 SCC 455 , this Court held that any State action undertaken in a hasty manner could be arbitrary State action cannot be condoned in law. This is what was said by this Court: “25. Before parting with the case, it may be pertinent to mention here that the allotment had been made to the appellant within 48 hours of submission of her application though in ordinary cases, it takes about a year. The appellant had further been favoured to pay the aforesaid provisional price of Rs. 93,000 in four instalments in two years, as is evident from the letter dated 8-4-1987. Making the allotment in such a hasty manner itself is arbitrary and unreasonable and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court has consistently held that “when a thing is done in a post-haste manner, mala fides would be presumed”. Anything done in undue haste can also be termed as “arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law.” [Vide S.P. Kapoor (Dr.) v. State of H.P. (1981) 4 SCC 716 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 14 : AIR 1981 SC 2181 , M.P. Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Devendra Kumar Jain, (1995) 1 SCC 638 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 364 : (1995) 29 ATC 159, Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia, (2004) 2 SCC 65 : AIR 2004 SC 1159 and Zenit Mataplast (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 388 ] Thus, such an allotment in favour of the appellant is liable to be declared to have been made in arbitrary and unreasonable manner. However, we are not inclined to take such drastic steps as the appellant has developed the land subsequent to allotment.” (Emphasis provided) 54. In Bahadurisnh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia, (2004) 2 SCC 65 , this Court reiterated the above principle while dealing with a case where the change in the office-bearer had resulted in a hasty and arbitrary change in the policy, which is also the case here. In Bahadurisnh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia, (2004) 2 SCC 65 , this Court reiterated the above principle while dealing with a case where the change in the office-bearer had resulted in a hasty and arbitrary change in the policy, which is also the case here. The relevant observations in the said judgment are as follows: “24. The impugned order was preceded by a direction of the Home Minister on 7-9-1996. A change in the opinion came into being only upon change in the holder of the office and that too within a few days. Not only had the matter not been admittedly placed on the agenda of the meeting dated 25-7-1997, the same was considered showing undue haste. 25. In S.P. Kapoor (Dr) v. State of H.P. (1981) 4 SCC 716 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 14 : AIR 1981 SC 2181 this Court held that when a thing is done in a post-haste manner, mala fide would be presumed, stating: (SCC p. 739, para 33) “33. … The post-haste manner in which these things have been done on 3-11-1979 suggests that some higher-up was interested in pushing through the matter hastily when the Regular Secretary, Health and Family Welfare was on leave.” (Emphasis provided) 55. In Zenit Mataplast (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 388 , this Court laid down the general principle that State action should be grounded in sound principles and should not be unpredictable or without basis. This Court noted as follows: “27. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and above-board but should be without any affection or aversion. It should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor even apparently give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. The decision should be made by the application of known principles and rules and in general such decision should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is, but if a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is antithesis to the decision taken in accordance with the rule of law [vide S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1427 , AIR p. 1434, para 14 and Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corpn. (1988) 1 SCC 166 : AIR 1988 SC 157 ].” (Emphasis provided) 56. (1988) 1 SCC 166 : AIR 1988 SC 157 ].” (Emphasis provided) 56. In the present case there are multiple deficiencies, as stated above. The giving away of a rigorous criteria laid down in the UGC regulations with a single, multiple-choice question based written test, and the complete elimination of the viva-voce, all establish the arbitrary nature of the exercise which cannot pass the test of reasonableness laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, the learned Single Judge had rightly struck down the entire selection process, and the Division Bench of the High Court erred in interfering with that conclusion. 57. Lastly we need to state that it is a settled principle that when the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it should be done in that manner alone. [See: Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2015) 13 SCC 722 , Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu, (2023) 10 SCC 461 , Nazir Ahmed v. King-Emperor, LR 63 IA 372, Babu Verghese & Ors. v. Bar Council of India & Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 422 ] 58. True, the State is entitled to change its policy, yet a sudden change without valid reasons will always be seen with suspicion. Even in cases where there is no statutory prescription of any particular way of doing a thing, the executive must observe the long-standing practice, and a deviation from such a practice would require passing the muster of reasonableness, which is a facet of Article 14 of the Constitution. In this regard, this Court in Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO, (2005) 1 SCC 625 observed that: “9. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for discernible reasons, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose…” In the case at hand, the State did not adhere to UGC Regulations and took the posts out of the purview of the Commission without following the procedure prescribed under the law. And this was done suddenly without any valid reason and thus, it would amount to arbitrariness and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, (2024) 3 SCC 799 the Constitution Bench of this Court observed that: “45. The underlying basis for the application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation has expanded and evolved to include the principles of good administration. Since citizens repose their trust in the State, the actions and policies of the State give rise to legitimate expectations that the State will adhere to its assurance or past practice by acting in a consistent, transparent, and predictable manner. The principles of good administration require that the decisions of public authorities must withstand the test of consistency, transparency, and predictability to avoid being regarded as arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14.” 59. As far back as in the year 1979, this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 , speaking through Justice PN Bhagwati, had said that government jobs are also a kind of wealth and the State cannot distribute or withhold such wealth on the basis of arbitrary principles. The relevant portion from the said case law is as follows: “ 11. Today the Government in a welfare State, is the regulator and dispenser of special services and provider of a large number of benefits, including jobs, contracts, licences, quotas, mineral rights, etc. The Government pours forth wealth, money, benefits, services, contracts, quotas and licences. The valuables dispensed by Government take many forms, but they all share one characteristic. Today the Government in a welfare State, is the regulator and dispenser of special services and provider of a large number of benefits, including jobs, contracts, licences, quotas, mineral rights, etc. The Government pours forth wealth, money, benefits, services, contracts, quotas and licences. The valuables dispensed by Government take many forms, but they all share one characteristic. They are steadily taking the place of traditional forms of wealth…..The discretion of the Government has been held to be not unlimited in that the Government cannot give or withhold largesse in its arbitrary discretion or at its sweet will. It is insisted, as pointed out by Prof. Reich in an especially stimulating article on “The New Property” in 73 Yale Law Journal 733, “that Government action be based on standards that are not arbitrary or unauthorised”. The Government cannot be permitted to say that it will give jobs or enter into contracts or issue quotas or licences only in favour of those having grey hair or belonging to a particular political party or professing a particular religious faith… 12 …It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largesse, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norms which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largesse including award of jobs, contracts, quotas, licences, etc. must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non- discriminatory standard or norm and if the Government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.” In the present case, the State has miserably failed to justify the departure from the standard norms of the recruitment process. It has failed to give any valid reason for not adopting the UGC Regulations and avoiding the Public Service Commission in the recruitment in question. It has failed to give any valid reason for not adopting the UGC Regulations and avoiding the Public Service Commission in the recruitment in question. Moreover, as discussed earlier, the reason for this departure were narrow political and clearly arbitrary. 60. Before parting, we would like to observe that we are aware of the fact that quashing of the entire recruitment process may cause hardships for the selected candidates, but at the same time, there is no equity in the favour of selected candidates as challenge to the recruitment was made during the pendency of the process and appointments were subject to the Court orders. A gross illegality like the present recruitment cannot be ignored.” In these cases before this Court, though the learned Advocate General has demonstrated that the procedure for selection has not been changed and the earlier pattern was adopted this year also, this Court finds that the State did not follow uniform and transparent procedure in the conduct of examination and interview in all the districts of Telangana. Though the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents have submitted and relied on judgments to the effect that the petitioners having participated in the written examination and also interview, cannot challenge the process after being unsuccessful, this Court finds that the irregularities committed while conducting the examination, interview or issuance of appointment letters would be known to the participants only after completion of the process. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar and others Vs. Shakti Raj and others (supra) has observed thus: “12. Yet another circumstance is that the Government had not taken out the posts from the purview of the Board, but after the examinations were conducted under the 1955 Rules and after the results were announced, it exercised the power under the proviso to para 6 of 1970 notification and the posts were taken out from the purview thereof. Thereafter the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the candidates. The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. Thereafter the Selection Committee was constituted for selection of the candidates. The entire procedure is also obviously illegal. It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal v. State of J&K2, and other decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken a chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful, cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the Selection Board or the method of selection as being illegal; he is stopped to question the correctness of the selection. But in his case, the Government have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates for examination under 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the and also conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the principle of estoppels by conduct of acquiescence has no application to the facts in this case. Thus, we consider that the procedure offered under the 1995 Rules adopted by the Government or the Committee as well as the action taken by the Government are not correct in law.” 13. In view of the above, the selections made to the posts of Fair Price Shop Dealerships pursuant to Notification No.F/737/2024 dt.29.08.2024 issued by the 4 th respondent are not clearly in accordance with the prescribed procedure under G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018 and are therefore liable to be set aside. 14. The other objection taken by respondent No.4 as well as other unofficial respondents is that necessary and proper parties, i.e., selected candidates are not made parties to these Writ Petitions. However, this Court finds that the petitioners could not have known all the selected candidates, but in W.P.No.4065 of 2025, all the successful candidates, i.e., the unofficial respondents are made as parties and they are also heard. Therefore, this ground is not sustainable. 15. Admittedly, in W.P.No.4065 of 2025, the challenge is to the process of selections to all the shops notified and all the selected candidates have been made parties to this Writ Petition. It is noticed that the petitioner has applied only for Shop No.3908035 of Sircilla. Therefore, not only the appointment of respondent No.40 to the said shop need be set aside, but the selection to all the shops notified vide subject notification need to be set aside. It is noticed that the petitioner has applied only for Shop No.3908035 of Sircilla. Therefore, not only the appointment of respondent No.40 to the said shop need be set aside, but the selection to all the shops notified vide subject notification need to be set aside. Accordingly, all the selections are set aside and the official respondent No.4 is directed to re-conduct the examination in accordance with law and the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018. W.P.No.4065 of 2025 is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Similarly, the appointments of respondents No.41, 50, 46, 53, 23, 54, 42, 26, 24, 6 and 8 in W.P.No.4065 of 2025 appointed to Shop Nos.3908049, 3908046, 3908025, 3908037, 3909025, 3908045, 3908048, 3909029, 3909026, 3904008 and 3904033 respectively, for which notification No.F/737/2024 dt.29.08.2024 has been issued, are also set aside with similar directions to re-conduct the examination for these shops. 16. The next objection of the respondents is that the petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions with delay and after the unofficial respondents have taken charge and are discharging their functions. This Court finds that the petitioners got to know of the selection of the unofficial respondents subsequently and therefore, after obtaining the necessary information, have filed the Writ Petitions and most of the Writ Petitions are filed within a period of one month only except for W.P.No.4065 of 2025 which is filed after a period of three months. Therefore, it cannot be said that these Writ Petitions have been filed with abnormal delay and that they are filed as an after-thought. In fact, it is noticed that W.P.No.24978 and 25400 of 2024 were filed even before the appointments were made, whereas W.P.No.27396 of 2024 was filed on 30.09.2024 and W.P.Nos.27794 and 27902 of 2024 were filed on 03.10.2024. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the petitioners in challenging the examination conducted by respondent No.4. 17. The objections of the petitioners to the examination are that G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018 prescribes the syllabus for the examination as the written test should be conducted on the existing PDS and the records to be maintained by the Fair Price Shop Dealer to know whether the applicant is aware of the functioning of the Public Distribution System in the State and whether he can function effectively in the implementation of PDS and other general issues. It appears that in this case, the respondents have issued a notification for conduct of the examination in general knowledge and arithmetic and the subject of PDS is not even mentioned in the notification. Therefore, the examination appears to be out of syllabus. Further, with regard to the interviews to be conducted, G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018 prescribes that the appointing authority shall cause service of letters calling upon all the eligible applicants for their interview duly indicating the date, time and the venue of interview and selections shall be made on the basis of the interviews conducted by the appointing authority purely on merit. However, it is noticed that in this case, respondent No.4 did not issue any interview letters to the eligible candidates, but appears to have called them over phone and have declared the result on 23.09.2024. Clause 3 of G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018 also prescribes that the appointing authority shall verify the antecedents of the selected candidates through the records in his office and he shall also get clearance report from the Tahsildar concerned about any punishment or involvement of selected candidates in any cases under various laws or under any of the orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act and his or her relationship with any business or ex-dealers or Government employees, etc. In this case, the said verification of antecedents admittedly had not been done by the authorities. It is another thing that the selected candidates may not be having any relationship with any of the Government employees, which is prohibited under the notification, but admittedly the verification has not been done by the authorities. This is evident from the fact that results were declared on 23.09.2024 and appointment letters were also issued on the same day in late night hours. 18. As regards the objection of the respondents that all the selected candidates are not made as parties to the Writ Petitions and therefore, the Writ Petitions are not maintainable for non-joinder of each and every necessary party, the petitioners have relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Vs. A.B. Natarajan and others (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that where it is clear that most of the candidates have not adhered to the instructions given to them and the candidates have made several unwarranted indications or markings in the answer books which ought not to have been made by them and there are allegations of malpractice and irregularities committed by the candidates, then non-joinder of selected parties would not make the challenge as not maintainable. This Court in W.P.Nos.27396 and 27902 of 2024 has observed that any appointment made pursuant to the notification No.F/737/2024 dt.29.08.2024 shall be subject to the outcome of these Writ Petitions. Therefore, the appointments given to the unofficial respondents, who have been selected and are discharging their duties, are subject to the outcome of these Writ Petitions. Further, in W.P.No.4065 of 2025, all the successful candidates have been made as parties and they have been served with notices and are represented by a counsel and few of the unofficial respondents have chosen to respond by filing specific counter affidavits. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the objection that non-joinder of necessary parties vitiates the Writ Petition, is not sustainable. It is accordingly dismissed. 19. In view of all the above findings, the selections made to the Fair Price Shops pursuant to the Notification No.F/737/2024 dt.29.08.2024 are set aside with a direction to respondent No.4 to reissue the notification with the prescribed syllabus and conduct the examination in a fair and transparent manner, duly following the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for competitive examination and thereafter make appointments. 20. The Writ Petitions No.4065 of 2025, 27902, 27794 and 27396 of 2024 are thus allowed. No order as to costs. 21. In W.P.No.24978 of 2024, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notification No.F/737/2024 dt.29.08.2024 issued by respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice on the ground that the official respondents have not issued the notification in accordance with the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018 particularly with regard to the qualifications as well as the reservations. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner belongs to BC-B community and was qualified for the post of Fair Price Shop dealer. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner belongs to BC-B community and was qualified for the post of Fair Price Shop dealer. However, in issuing the notification dt.29.08.2024, respondent No.4 has not followed the roster and reservation in accordance with law and therefore, the petitioner is deprived of the opportunity to apply for appointment of dealer for the fair price shop in Indiramma Village of Thangallapalli Mandal. It is submitted that G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018 prescribes 10 th class as the minimum general educational qualification and it further provides that if no candidate is available with the said minimum general educational qualification, then the candidate possessing lesser qualification not less than 7 th class shall also be considered. He submitted that in the notification, it is not mentioned that a person with lesser qualification shall also be considered if the candidate with minimum general educational qualification is not available. 23. In respect of reservations, it is stated that G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018 does not provide reservation for EWS category, however, the fair price shop vacancies at Serial Nos.1, 4, 36, 41, 45 and 52 are reserved for EWS category and further that fair price shop at Serial No.19 was reserved for Ex-Servicemen (OC) even though there is no such reservation in the G.O. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the G.O. provides for 1% reservation in favour of widows of Ex-servicemen, but no shop was reserved for widows of Ex- servicemen and there is no provision for sub-categorization of reservation prescribed for BCs and though the G.O. does not make any differentiation with regard to nature of handicap and 3% reservation was made to physically handicapped quota. The notification reserved the vacancies at Serial No.7 for visually handicapped (OC), Serial No.4 for orthopedically handicapped (OC) and Serial No.55 for hearing handicapped (OC) in violation of spirit of the terms prescribed in the G.O. Therefore, according to him, the notification is issued in violation of the terms prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018. 24. In addition to the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that proper procedure has not been followed in the conduct of examination and similar objections as raised in W.P.Nos.4065 of 2025, 27902, 27794 and 27396 of 2024 with regard to the conduct of examination are also raised in this Writ Petition. 25. 24. In addition to the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that proper procedure has not been followed in the conduct of examination and similar objections as raised in W.P.Nos.4065 of 2025, 27902, 27794 and 27396 of 2024 with regard to the conduct of examination are also raised in this Writ Petition. 25. Respondent No.4 has filed a counter affidavit stating that he has undertaken a proper exercise to allot and earmark reservations as per the roster points and that the instructions issued by the Government from time to time were followed. It is stated that the State Government has subsequently amended para 7 of G.O.Ms.No.20, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in respect of certain reservations and created a new roster through various orders and in compliance with the same, respondent No.4 adopted Rules 22 and 22A of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 for implementing the reservations. It is submitted that respondent No.4 has allotted new roster points effective from 09.11.2022 as per G.O.Ms.No.130 dt.09.11.2022 issued by Government of Telangana. It is submitted that reservations were earmarked based on community-wise population of ration card holders. It is further submitted that interviews were held on 21.09.2024 and the results were declared on 23.09.2024. 26. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit stating that the posts of fair price shop dealers are not Government jobs and therefore, Rules 22 and 22-A of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 are not applicable. 27. This Court in W.P.Nos.4065 of 2025, 27902, 27794 and 27396 of 2024 have already observed that the official respondents have not followed the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018 and accordingly set aside the selection process. Since the petitioner herein is additionally challenging the reservation of roster and also in not giving proper time for submission of application, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the official respondents to follow the correct roster point while issuing the fresh notification. In the notification, the relevant clause with regard to the educational qualifications shall also be mentioned and as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fair price shop dealers are not Government jobs and that their remuneration is depending on the cards attached to the shop. Therefore, the roster referred to in G.O.Ms.No.130 dt.09.11.2022 shall not be applicable. Therefore, the roster referred to in G.O.Ms.No.130 dt.09.11.2022 shall not be applicable. The reservation shall be provided strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued in para 7 of G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018. 28. With these directions, W.P.No.24978 of 2024 is disposed of. No order as to costs. 29. The petitioners in W.P.No.25400 of 2024 are the persons who have been temporarily managing the fair price shops. Petitioner No.1 is managing the Fair Price Shop No.3904008 at Galipalli Village, Ellanthakunta Mandal from 2018, while petitioner No.2 is managing the Fair Price Shop No.3904033 at Pathikuntapalli Village, Ellanthakunta Mandal from 2018 both in Rajanna Sircilla District and they are aggrieved by the notification of the said shops. However, this Court finds that the petitioners have not filed any allotment letters and their grievance as per their representation dt.03.09.2024 is that authorisations have not been issued to them and that they were selected as fair price shop dealers in the Grama Sabhas conducted. It appears that it is only a temporary arrangement and they were leaders of self-help groups. Therefore, they have no right to seek continuation without following the proper procedure. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in this Writ Petition. 30. W.P.No.25400 of 2024 is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the petitioners are at liberty to participate in the selection process which would be initiated consequent to the orders of this Court. 31. In the Result— (i) W.P.Nos.4065 of 2025, 27902, 27794 and 27396 of 2024 are allowed. The selections made to the Fair Price Shops pursuant to the Notification No.F/737/2024 dt.29.08.2024 are set aside with a direction to respondent No.4 to reissue the notification with the prescribed syllabus and conduct the examination in a fair and transparent manner, duly following the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for competitive examinations and thereafter make appointments. No order as to costs. (ii) W.P.No.24978 of 2024 is disposed of directing the official respondents to follow the correct roster point while issuing the fresh notification and also mention relevant clause in the fresh notification with regard to the educational qualifications. The reservations shall be provided strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued in para 7 of G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018. No order as to costs. (iii) W.P.No.25400 of 2024 is dismissed. No order as to costs. The reservations shall be provided strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued in para 7 of G.O.Ms.No.20 dt.06.09.2018. No order as to costs. (iii) W.P.No.25400 of 2024 is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the petitioners are at liberty to participate in the selection process which would be initiated consequent to the orders of this Court. 32. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in all these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.