The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 apprehending that fresh application would be invited pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. Ext.P8 came to be passed in an appeal filed by the petitioner challenging Exts.P3 and P4 orders. In fact, in Ext.P3, the original authority relied upon certain circulars issued subsequent to the notification and has formed an opinion that the applicants were not entitled for selection, and, accordingly, it was observed that fresh applications are to be invited. 2. The said order was confirmed by the Collector in an appeal. However, the Commissioner formed an opinion that the authorities concerned ought not have relied upon the said circulars as the circulars were issued subsequent to the notifications.
3. Still further, the Commissioner observed that the Civil Supplies Officer shall include the existing applicants also to W.P.C.No.27138 OF 2013 2 complete the procedure afresh, in accordance with the procedure prescribed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when it is found that the circulars were not applicable, there was no reason for the Civil Supplies Commissioner to have directed fresh application to be called for, and the direction ought have been to permit the earlier applicants to compete in respect of a notification issued earlier.
5. Counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent, inter alia, stating that by the order of Civil Supplies Commissioner, District Supply Officer is to make procedure of appointment afresh including the existing applicants and without a re-notification. It is stated that the said order is just and lawful read along with the suo moto power vested on the Commissioner of Civil Supplies under Clause 45(10) of Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. It is further stated that the criteria for appointment will be based on the law prevailing at the time of notification for the depot and the Government Circular dated 26.09.2012 cannot be accepted in a retrospective manner for the appointment.
W.P.C.No.27138 OF 2013 3
6. Having regard to the aforesaid contentions urged by the respondent, I do not think that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner has any relevance. The Commissioner had directed to complete the procedure with the existing applicants in accordance with the procedure prescribed. There is no reason to interfere with Ext.P8 as it does not affect the interest of the petitioner in any manner. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and based on the averments made in the counter affidavit, there is no reason for any apprehension as expressed by the petitioner in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE sd //True Copy // P.A. to Judge sd