Telangana High Court
WP/5352/2006 of Gulla Tarakeswara Rao Vs The Joint Collector and Additional District on 26 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.5352 of 2006 Dated:26.12.2006 Between Gulla Tarakeswara Rao …..Petitioner and 1. The Joint Collector, and Additional District Magistrate, Vizianagaram Vizianagaram District. and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
W.P.No.5352 of 2006
Dated:26.12.2006
Between
Gulla Tarakeswara Rao
and
…..Petitioner
1.The Joint Collector,and Additional District Magistrate, Vizianagaram Vizianagaram District.
and others.
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULUW.P.No.5352 of 2006
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamusto declare the proceedings dated 4.3.2006 passedby the 1[st] respondent, as arbitrary and illegal.
It appears that a notification dated 12.8.2005,for fair shop dealer of shop No.2 of Arasada Village,District wasBalijapeta Mandal, Vizianagaram notified for being filled up with BC candidate. Itseems that the petitioner, who is not only belongs toBC but also a physically handicapped person,applied along with others. The 2[nd] respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings dated26.10.2005 appointed the petitioner as a fair priceshop dealer for shop No.2 of Arasada Village,Balijapeta Mandal, Vizianagaram District. and 5[th]Aggrieved by the same, the 4[th] respondents filed an before the 1[st]appeal respondentcomplaining that they are more suitable personsand they ought to have been appointed. However, and 5[th]while considering the appeal filed by the 4[th]respondents, the 1[st] respondent set aside theappointment of the petitioner on a different groundholding that the total number of vacancies to befilled up with BC candidates being 137, alreadyare250 persons belonging to BC community running the fair price shops. Therefore, there is noroaster point available against BC candidates andthus, set aside the appointment of the petitioner andthat the 2[nd] respondent-Revenue Divisional Officerwas directed to re-notify the vacancy. Aggrieved bythe same, the present writ petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contendedthat the petitioner is not only a BC candidate butalso a physically handicapped person. Therefore,his case was considered. Since there are 7vacancies available against the physicallyhandicapped quota in the entire division ofParvathipuram, filling up of one vacancy with the petitioner does not create any problem in identifyingthe BC vacancies.
Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that BC candidates areoutnumbered their quota against 173 vacanciesreserved for BCs, in Parvathipuram Division already230 persons belonging to BC are havingauthorizations to run fair price shops and therefore,the question of filling up of this vacancy by a BCcandidate does not arise. Under thosecircumstances, the 1[st] respondent-Joint Collectorhas rightly considered the appeal filed by the 4[th]and 5[th] respondents and allowed and directed re-notification of the vancancy. The order passed bythe Joint Collector does not call for any interferenceby this Court.
I have given my earnest consideration to therespective submissions made by the learnedcounsel on either side and perused the impugnedorder and other material made available on record.
A perusal of the record goes to show that the
petitioner is a physically handicapped person andalso belonging to a BC category and the vacancywas notified for BC candidates and the petitionerwas selected and appointed. The respondents 4and 5 are not qualified, their cases were rejected. Thus, they have filed an appeal before the 1[st]The 1[st]respondent-Joint Collector. respondentwhile taking the statistics into consideration felt thatthe vacancy ought not to have been reserved for BCcandidate, as such, set aside the appointment ofthe petitioner and directed the 2[nd] respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to re-notify the vacancy. Learned counsel for the petitioner states thatin the entire Parvathipuram Division, if comparedwith the other areas, BC population is 80%. But it isfor the authorities to decide as to whether OC areavailable in each and every village and whether thesame can be reserved only for OC candidates whenthe roaster points have already been filled up as perthe policy. This is a peculiar case where against173 reserved vacancies, 250 persons belonging toBC category were appointed. But, that does not mean that all those persons who were appointedagainst 250 vacancies have been appointed onlyagainst BC vacancies. In a situation like this,probably it may have to be deemed that they areappointed against OC vacancies, but since 173vacancies are already filled up with BC candidatesnothing can be done in this case for getting itreserved for BC candidate, as notified by theauthorities. Therefore, Joint Collector cannot besaid to be wrong in pointing out that all the 173vacancies belonging to BC are filled up.
However, since the petitioner is a physicallyhandicapped person, the Revenue Divisional Officershall reconsider the matter in appointing thepetitioner against the physically handicapped quotaif he is otherwise eligible as per law. Till such time,the authorization of the petitioner shall not bedisturbed. No costs.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Nocosts.
_________
rkk
26-12-2006