Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Telangana
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

Madikonda Sampath Kumar vs The District Collector And Others

High Court Of Telangana|10 December, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.19495 of 2008 Between:
Madikonda Sampath Kumar PETITIONER AND
1. The District Collector, Collecterate, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal, Warangal District, and others.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents.
2. The petitioner was an unemployed person and belongs to scheduled caste community. In pursuance of the notification issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner applied for appointment of fair price shop dealer for shop No.14 of Parkal Village, Warangal District, attended the interview on 18.08.2008, and was selected by proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 23.08.2008. The petitioner was asked to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards trade deposit, and Rs.500/- towards authorisation fee and also rental agreement/ownership certificate for the premises. The petitioner complied with the same. While so, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 29.09.2008 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he was given 8½ marks instead of 8 marks in the written test, and oral test marks were not allocated to the candidates in the selection process. It is the grievance of the petitioner that before passing the impugned order no enquiry was conducted. Challenging the same, the present writ petition was filed.
3. Initially, this Court by order dated 08.09.2008 directed the respondents not to make any permanent appointment of dealer in respect of shop No.14 of Parkal Village, Warangal District, and the said order was modified on 05.12.2008 directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to run the fair price shop. It was also made clear that the order will not preclude the respondents from examining the selection process already conducted afresh and the petitioner shall be subjected to fresh examination of the case, if necessary, along with the others. Thus the petitioner has been continuing as fair price shop dealer till now.
4. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit stating that 22 candidates applied for the post of fair price shop dealer of Shop No.14, Parkal Village and Mandal. The attendance sheet contained 9 signatures, whereas 16 candidates appeared for written test on 18.08.2008. There is no signature of any official on the attendance sheet. The petitioner actually secured 7½ marks (stands corrected) in the written test instead of 8½ marks. The marks sheet was having over writings with no signatures or initials. The selection of only one candidate from among the 57 vacancies shows that the petitioner was favoured in the selection process. Further, fair price shop No.14 was notified as B.C-Woman, but the petitioner, who belongs to SC (Madiga) Community, was selected. The 3rd respondent signed the office note over looking all these mistakes and appointed the petitioner. Though the antecedents of the petitioner have to be verified by the Tahsildar, the same were verified by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Parkal. Thus the 3rd respondent has not followed the due procedure. There were several protests both by public and in Media over the entire selection process. After studying the file, the 2nd respondent came to the conclusion that fair and just procedure was not followed.
5. After perusing the counter affidavit, this Court passed order dated 05.12.2008. No additional counter affidavit is filed indicating that there is any fresh selection process was conducted or not. The counter is also silent with regard to the action taken on the 3rd respondent, who mechanically signed the note file. No notice was given to the petitioner before cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner has been continuing for the last six years.
6. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 29.08.2008. The respondents are given liberty to conduct fresh selection process, if they are so advised, and the petitioner is entitled to apply for the same. Till the permanent appointment is made, the petitioner shall be continued as fair price shop dealer. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J.
10th December, 2014 Js.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Madikonda Sampath Kumar vs The District Collector And Others

Court

High Court Of Telangana

JudgmentDate
10 December, 2014
Judges
  • A Ramalingeswara Rao