D. Sambaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others

Questioning the notification issued by the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal, in his Proceedings No.G/2842/98 dated 7-1-1999 cancellling the earlier Notification No.G/ 2842/98 dated 14-8-1998, to fill up 35 vacancies of Fair Price Shop Dealership in Warangal Division, as per the guidelines issued under G.O. Ms. No.99 Food and Consumer Affairs (CS) Branch, dated 22-10-1998 whereby the residents of Warangal Division, who fulfill the prescribed conditions were asked to submit their applications for the said vacancies in the prescribed form oil or before 5-00 p.m. on 28th January, 1999 according jto which the Shop No, 127 of Gopalpuram, of the petitioner was reserved for woman candidate, the petitioner who was holding temporary dealership of the said shop, filed the present writ petition praying to declare the action of the respondents in reserving the said shop in favour of woman candidate, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as dealer of the said shop.

The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that late D. Swamy, who was father of the petitioner, was appointed as fair price shop dealer for Shop No. 127 Gopalpuram of Hanmakonda Mandal, about 15 years back and the said D. Swamy died in the year 1998, After his death, the petitioner, who was son of the said D. Swamy, submitted an application to the respondents 2 and 3 to appoint him as the temporary dealer till permanent arrangement is made. On the recommendations of the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Hanmaknonda, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Hanmakonda appointed him as the Fair Price Shop Dealer for the said Shop No.127 of Gopalpuram as per his orders dated 31-10-1998 for a period of three months and the same was being renewed from time to time and as on the date of filing of the writ petition, he is continuing as dealer of said shop. He further submits that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal, has issued Notification No.G/ 2842/98 dated 7-1-1999 proposing to select and appoint Fair Price Shop Dealer to the various shops in the Revenue Division including the Shop No.127 of Gopalpuram village. He further submits that in the Revenue Division as many as 35 shops were notified and the shops were reserved in favour of either scheduled tribes, women or physically handicapped and Shop No.127 Gopalpuram village was allocated to be filled by a woman candidate and that not even a single shop was left unreserved. The petitioner further contends that the reservation of entire 35 shops without leaving a single shop unreserved is contrary to law and such wholesale reservation is opposed to the very concept of equality and the law declared by the Supreme Court and this Court from time to time. He further submits that on account of the reservation of the shops in general and the Shop No.127, Gopalpuram, in particular, the petitioner is disentitled from applying for appointment of the Fair Price Shop Dealership. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition assailing the correctness of the reservation of all the 35 vacancies of Fair Price Shop Dealership in Warangal division as illegal, unconstitutional and discriminatory.

In reply to the above averments made by the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the second respondent in the writ petition, filed counter affidavit, stating that the notification was issued for filling up of 35 Fair Price Shop Dealership vacancies in accordance with the Rules framed under the Act. When the notification was issued on 14-8-1998 to fill up the vacancies, the said notification was set aside by the Honourable High Court and the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.99 dated 22-10-1998 which was issued in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.6729 of 1992 and Batch dated 28-11-1998. Therefore, in cosnonance of the said guidelines, reservation was made at the following rates:

Scheduled Castes .. 15%

Scheduled Tribes .. 06%

Physically Handicapped .. 03%

Backward Classes .. 25%

The respondent has given the date of total 595 dealership vacancies in the Warangal Division as under:

Men Women Total

SCs. reservation 15% 89

Existing FP shops held by SCs. Men and women as on 7-1-99 103 45 148

STs. reservation 6% 35

Existing STFP shops held by men and women ason 7-1-99 10 9 19

Less 16

Physically handicapped reservation @ 3% 18

Existing shops held by Physically handicapped persons as on 7-1-99 3 7 10

Less 8

BCs. reservaion @ 25% 149

Existing shops held by BC persons as on 7-1-1999 161 74 235

Excess 86

other castes 94

Societies 52

Clear vacancies 35

Covered by Court stay orders as on 7-1-1999 2

Thus the total reservation that was made was only 49%. The respondent further submitted that there was a shortfall in the categories of Scheduled Tribes, Women and Physically Handicapped persons.

Therefore, it is clear from the table that out of 595 Fair Price Shops in the entire Division, the department has taken decision to fill up 35 clear vacancies, which were reserved for Scheduled Tribes, Women, Physically Handicapped and Backward Classes. As seen from the table, there is shortfall of vacancies in the categories of Scheduled Tribes, Women and Physically Handicapped persons. Hence, the above notification was issued for filling up of the said clear vacancies in cosnonance with the directions of the Government in G.O. Ms. No.99 dated 22-10-1999 and, therefore, it can not be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Government while reiterating the reservation policy, directed to take the Revenue Division as a unit for the purpose of implementation of reservation. The said Government Order also manifests that at the time of calling applications, the category to which the vacancy is earmarked shall be indicated in the notification, so that reservation prescribed could be achieved and only after achieving the reservation the shops may be notified for non-reserved categories, and therefore, the impugned notification was issued to make good of the shortfalls in the reserved categories. The learned Counsel also submitted that to achieve the target of reservation, as per the instructions issued in the said Government Order, the notification has been issued and since the Revenue Division is taken as a unit for fulfilling the reservations and there is shortfall in respect of Women, Scheduled Tribes and Physically handicapped persons, as per the said Government Order the notification has been issued to fill up short fall of vacancies in the said categories. He, therefore, submitted that while fixing the reserved points, the Shop No. 127, Gopalpuram village, fell to the category of women candidate. It is also submitted that the writ petitioner, D. Sambaiah, was appointed purely on temporary basis and he would not have any right of dealership on regular basis and he could be removed at any time without assigning any reasons as per Rules. As such he has no right to question the above said notification reserving the said shop to a woman candidate. As seen from the facts an circumstances of the case, in the Revenue Division, Warangal, there are as many as 595 Fair price Shops sanctioned. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents, out of 35 shops reserved for Scheduled Tribes, only 19 dealerships were held by them and hence, there is a shortfall of 16 vacancies for Scheduled Tribes. In the case of physically handicapped, when they are entitled for 18 shops, only 10 shops were held by them. Hence, there is shortfall of eight shops. The present notification is issued to make good the shortfall of the said dealership of the shops. While fixing the reserved shops, the Shop No.127, Gopalpuram, fell to the reserved category of women. Therefore, the petitioner, who holds temporary dealership of the said shop, can not assail the policy decision of the Government to reserve the Fair Price Shop dealership of Shop No.127, Gopalpuram in particular and to the categories mentioned in the notification to make good the shortfall of the said categories in general. Thus the contention of the petitioner that the wholesale reservation of the 35 shops without leaving a single shop unreserved is not correct. The petitioner, without knowing the total strength of Fair Price Shops sanctioned in the Revenue Division, as 595, views that the entire 35 shops sanctioned in the Revenue Division have been reserved without leaving a single shop as unreserved. In consonance of the Government Order, the Revenue division is taken as a unit for implementing the reservation policy of the Government and in that process, when the shortfall took place, in respect of Scheduled Tribes, Women and Physically Handicapped categories, the impugned notification was issued. Therefore, it can not be said that all the 35 shops are reserved without leaving a single shop unreserved. Prima facie, the petitioner, who is holding temporary dealership of the Shop No.127, Gopalpuram village, has no right to question the decision of the Government in implementing the reservation policy for permanent dealership, which is well within 49% of the total sanctioned shops in the Division. Thus the decision of the authorities is strictly in compliance of the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in P. Katama Reddy Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantpur and Others, , which emphasises that the reservations so made both for women and other categories should not exceed 50% of the Fair Price Shops and each Revenue Division/Circle shall be taken as a unit for the said purpose.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation in holding that the writ petition does not deserve consideration and, therefore, it is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, without costs.