* The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy + Writ Petition No.38295 of 2014 % Dated 12.12.2014 Between:
# G.Dorasanamma And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl.Secretary Civil Supplies Dept., Hyderabad and 4 others.
…Petitioner …Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Kambhampati Ramesh Babu ^ Counsel for the respondents: GP for Civil Supplies (AP) <GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases cited:
The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.38295 of 2014 Dated 12.12.2014 Between:
G.Dorasanamma And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl.Secretary Civil Supplies Dept., Hyderabad and 4 others.
…Petitioner …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Kambhampati Ramesh Babu Counsel for the respondents: GP for Civil Supplies (AP) The Court made the following:
Order:
Here is a case where respondent No.4 has disqualified the petitioner from continuing as the fair price shop dealer for the alleged sin of pursuing higher studies after her appointment as such.
The facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows:
The petitioner, after going through the selection process, was appointed as a permanent fair price shop dealer on 29-09-2011. On 27-10-
2014, it has occurred to respondent No.4 to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner for cancellation of her fair price shop authorization. Accordingly, he has issued a show cause notice with a solitary charge, which reads as under:
“Kum.G.Dorasanamma, on one hand holding the post of Fair Price Shop Dealer of Shop No.3, A.C.Colony, Duttalur Mandal, and on the other hand, she is regularly studying B.Com., 3rd year at MSR Degree College, Vinjamur, by sailing in the two boats and thereby, contravened the provisions of authorization.
The Fair Price Shop Dealer has deceived the administration and worked as fair price shop dealer, while studying as regular student of B.Com., 3rd year at MSR Degree College, Vinjamur.”
On the same day, respondent No.4 has suspended the petitioner’s authorization by passing a separate order. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner has submitted her representation on 31- 10-2014 wherein she has stated that she belongs to the scheduled caste community; that her father has three daughters of which she is the eldest; that her family does not possess any properties; that as she had no capacity to continue her studies, she had discontinued her degree; that her parents have been maintaining their family by attending to coolie work; and that as their health has deteriorated, they are unable to earn the wages for the maintenance of their family. She has further stated that by making hard efforts, she could secure the fair price shop dealership, which is the only source of income for the entire family, and that at the instance of certain politicians, respondent No.5 has sent an adverse report against her to respondent No.4 in order to see that she is replaced by a person of their choice. It is at this stage that the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
Though the enquiry is pending before respondent No.4, on the facts of this case, I feel that driving the petitioner to undergo the rigmarole before respondent No.4 is wholly unjust and unnecessary. The gravamen of the charge against the petitioner is that she has been studying degree course, while functioning as fair price shop dealer.
Clauses 4 and 5 of G.O.Ms.No.52 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 18-12-2008, prescribe the eligibility criteria and the minimum general educational qualifications for selection and appointment of the fair price shop dealers. These clauses read as under:
“4: Eligibility:
Keeping in view, the growing unemployment, only unemployed persons or from Registered Rural area groups of Women’s voluntary consumer Organisations (which have only women as members) or Women’s thrift groups like ‘Podupu Lakshmi’ Co-operative Societies run exclusively by women shall be eligible for appointment as fair price shop dealers.
5 : Minimum General Educational Qualifications:
5.1. A pass in 10th class shall be the minimum general educational qualification required for appointment as fair price shop dealers;
(a) Persons possessing the minimum general educational qualifications and the persons having higher qualifications, if applied, shall be treated equally for the purpose of appointment; and
(b) Where no candidate is available with the said minimum general educational qualifications, a candidate possessing a lesser educational qualifications, which shall not be less than a pass in 7th class, if applies, may be considered for appointment.”
From the above-reproduced clauses, it is evident that unemployment is made the main criterion for eligibility. There is no allegation that the petitioner is employed somewhere else. The issue whether a person is unemployed or not does not depend upon his/her pursuing further studies. Suppose, in the instant case, the petitioner has stopped her studies with 10th class, she would have been treated as unemployed. This being so, if the petitioner, after her appointment as the fair price shop dealer, pursues her further studies, does she incur disqualification for being continued as fair price shop dealer ? My answer is in the negative. The State cannot place embargo on the further studies of a person, who is appointed as a fair price shop dealer, by merely branding him/her as a student. Such a treatment would kill the aptitude of the persons, who pursue higher studies. It is not the case of respondent No.4 that pursuing higher studies is coming in the way of the petitioner in proper and effective running of the fair price shop. If that be so, there would have been justification for respondent No.4 to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. There is no whisper against the petitioner that she has not been maintaining the timings of the fair price shop or has been neglecting distribution of essential commodities to the card hodlers due to her studies. Indeed, the petitioner has gone to the extent of stating that she has discontinued her studies.
There is one other angle to this case. The charge is not to the effect that at the time of her appointment, the petitioner was pursuing her studies. On the contrary, the specific allegation is that the petitioner has joined B.Com Computer English medium course on 06-07-2012 i.e., much after her appointment as the fair price shop dealer. There is nothing in the above-mentioned GO, which says that if a person, who was treated as unemployed, is found studying after his/her appointment as such, he/she incurs disqualification to continue as the fair price shop dealer. This Court, however, hastens to add that if such studies come in the way of the fair price shop dealer discharging his/her duties as such, on the facts of each case, the authorities can take appropriate action. There is no such allegation against the petitioner in the instant case. Even assuming that the petitioner had joined the degree course after her appointment as the fair price shop dealer, that by no means would disqualify her to continue as such.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner are misconceived besides the same being wholly irrational and unreasonable. Therefore, both the impugned show cause notice in Rc.B.3401/2014, dated 27-10-2014, and the consequential order of suspension in Rc.B.3401/2014, dated 27-10-2014, of respondent No.4, are quashed.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.47923 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 12th December, 2014
Note:
LR copies
(B/o) LUR