Gopal Lal Khatik vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Hon''ble Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Heard the Learned Counsel for appellant. Challenge in this intra Court appeal is to the order of Single Bench dated 22.05.2012, whereby S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6888/2012, filed by petitioner, has been disposed off with a direction to respondents to consider the matter afresh with regard to allotment of fair price shop at Bassi before proceeding further in pursuance of fresh advertisement, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and keeping in mind his selection made by the competent selection committee.

Submission of the Learned Counsel for appellant is that an advertisement was issued on 28.06.2011 by the District Collector, Jaipur, inviting applications for allotment of fair price shop at various places including Bassi. Petitioner had applied for allotment of shop at Bassi; he was selected for allotment of fair price shop at Bassi; there was no complaint against selection process; selection of petitioner was also not cancelled, but without any rhyme or reason, respondents issued another advertisement dated 09.04.2012 for making selection for the fair price shop including the shop at Bassi. He further submitted that although the learned Single Judge was satisfied with the submissions of petitioner, but still impugned order dated 09.04.2012 was not set aside and order has been passed for fresh consideration of allotment of fair price shop at Bassi. He submitted that looking to the observations made in favour of appellant in para Nos.6 and 7 of the impugned order, the impugned order dated 22.05.2012 passed by the Single Bench as well as order dated 09.04.2012 may be set aside and respondents may be directed to allot fair price shop to appellant at Bassi.

We have considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel for appellant and examined the impugned order passed by the Single Bench as well as other documents.

From the impugned order, it appears that appellant had applied for allotment of fair price shop at Bassi and he was selected for the same. It also appears from the Office Note (Annexure-4) that selection committee had recommended the name of appellant for allotment of shop at Bassi and his name finds place at S.No.21, however, no formal order of allotment was passed in favour of appellant.

Respondents contested the writ petition before the Single Bench contending that even the selected candidate does not have any right on the basis of inclusion of his/her name in the merit list unless the candidate is appointed. Respondents also referred the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India,

Learned Single Judge, in para 6 of the order, while considering the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash(supra), although made observations in favour of appellant, but did not quash the impugned order i.e. second advertisement dated 09.04.2012. From the order of Single Bench, it is clear that Single Bench has already directed the respondents to re-consider the matter before proceeding to act in furtherance of the advertisement dated 09.04.2012, afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner and keeping in mind that petitioner was selected by the competent selection committee and duly approved by the Collector, as per the requirement of the guidelines dated 27.02.2009. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that required directions in favour of appellant have already been issued by the learned Single Judge and no more direction was required to be issued.

In view of above, we find no force in the submissions of the Learned Counsel for appellant. The appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Stay Application No. 9814/2012 also stands dismissed.