Dismissed

Nelluri Varaprasad, v. The District Collector, Nalgonda

Telangana HC6 Feb 2006WP/5346/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of a fourth respondent as a fair price shop dealer. The petitioner, having higher qualifications, claimed he was disadvantaged. The court held that meeting minimum eligibility was sufficient and the appointment was based on performance, dismissing the petition as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Nelluri Varaprasad, Vs The District Collector, Nalgonda — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO : 5346 of 2004

¶3

Dated: 06-02-2006

¶4

Between: Nelluri Varaprasad ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District and three others.

¶5

.....RESPONDENTS

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO : 5346 of 2004

¶8

O R D E R:

¶9

The third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, Nalgonda

¶10

District, issued a notification dated

¶11

20-09-2002 inviting applications for appointment of a Dealer in respect of the fair price shop of Gondriyala Village, Kodad Mandal. Petitioner states that in response to the said notification, he made an application and also attended the interview. However, by order dated 24-01-2003, the third respondent has appointed the fourth respondent as fair price shop dealer. Questioning the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent-Joint Collector, Nalgonda. Though initially, the Joint Collector stayed the order of appointment dated 24-01-2003, ultimately the appeal was dismissed by order dated 06-10-2003. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent-District Collector, Nalgonda, which also ended in dismissal by order dated 08-03-2004. Hence, this writ petition questioning the order of appointment made by the third respondent as confirmed in appeal and revision.

¶12

The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the order of appointment of the fourth respondent is illegal and unsustainable since he was less qualified than the petitioner. It is pleaded that the petitioner had passed intermediate where as the fourth respondent had passed X class and therefore, the respondents ought not to have given preference to the fourth respondent.

¶13

The said contention on the face of it is not well founded and without any substance. It is not in dispute that as per the eligibility criteria prescribed for appointment of fair price shop dealers, the educational qualification required is a pass in X class and admittedly, the fourth respondent has satisfied the said requirement. In the circumstances, the mere fact that the petitioner possessed a higher educational qualification is immaterial and on that ground he cannot be given preference.

¶14

The third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda, who is the Appointing Authority, in the impugned order of appointment has categorically stated that the fourth respondent was appointed keeping in view his performance in the interview and other merits. That apart, in the counter affidavit it is stated that the fair price shop in Gondriyala Village fell vacant due to cancellation of authorization of the earlier dealer Sri Nelluri Madhavarao, who allegedly diverted 5.15 quintals of rice to black market. On the said ground confiscation of the seized stocks to the extent of 25% was also ordered.

¶15

Subsequently, his authorization was cancelled and a notification was issued inviting applications for appointment of new fair price shop dealer. The petitioner is none other than the brother of Nelluri Madhava Rao, whose authorization was, earlier, cancelled.

¶16

The said averment in the counter affidavit stood unrebutted. In the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the third respondent in appointing the fourth respondent as confirmed by the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits.

¶17

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶18

G.ROHINI,J

¶19

Dated:06-02-2006

¶20

Klp/ghn

Nelluri Varaprasad, v. The District Collector, Nalgonda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nelluri Varaprasad, v. The District Collector, Nalgonda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Merugu Bikshapathi Goud, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Police

Terala Saraswathi Vs Comm. of Labour Hyd and 3 Ors.

Abdul Ghani, Vs The Commissioner of Police

P.Sugandhamma, Vs The Joint Collector

Mohd. Minhajuddin Kousar, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

K.Subba Rao Kurnool Vs the Dist Collector Kurnooland Arn