Telangana High Court
WP/16005/2005 of Siddani Guravaiah, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer, on 26 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.16005 OF 2005 DATED: 26-12-2006 Between: Siddani Guravaiah .. Petitioner and Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur (PO), Prakasam District. .. Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.NO.16005 OF 2005 Order: This writ petition is filed
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU
WRIT PETITION NO.16005 OF 2005
DATED: 26-12-2006
Between:
Siddani Guravaiah
.. Petitioner
and
Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur (PO),Prakasam District.
.. Respondent
W.P.NO.16005 OF 2005
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 mandamus declaring the notificationissued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur vide RC.F/974/2005 dated07-05-2005, as arbitrary and illegal.
It appears, under the impugned notification, applications were invited from-the candidates belonging to General Category for fillingup the vacancy of FairPrice Shop Dealer of Potlapadu village, Kurichedu Mandal, Kandukur Division.It is the case of the petitioner that the said vacancy ought to have been reservedfor B.C. candidates since sufficient number of General Category candidateshave already been appointed and huge number of backlog vacancies to be filledup against B.C. candidates are lying vacant.Therefore, the impugnednotification is arbitrary and illegal.
It is the contention of the petitioner that there are 25 Fair Price Shops underPublic Distribution System in Kurichedu Mandal.Out of the said 25 shops,dealership of 14 shops is on permanent basis. The remaining 11 shops aretemporary shops situated at Gangavaram, Bayyavaram, Potlapadu,Peddavaram, Kurichedu, Kalluru, Avulamanda, Veerayyapalem, N.S.Puram,V.Y.Colony and Nachapuram.Out of 25 shops (inclusive of permanent andtemporary), 22 shops are allotted to General Category candidates.Not even asingle shop is reserved for B.C. candidates though 25% was reserved to B.C.candidates as per G.O.Ms.No.53.Hence the notification issued is not inconsonance with G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06-10-2003.
The respondent filed a detailed counter stating that the total number of FairPrice Shops in Kandukur Division is 715.Out of these shops, 574 shops werefilled with permanent dealers and remaining 141 shops are run by temporary/in-charge dealers.The reservation observed in respect of 574 permanent-shops is as follows:
It is further stated in the counter that according to para 7 of G.O.Ms.No.53dated 06-10-2003, reservation for women in allotment of Fair Price Shops shallbe fixed at 30% and it is being followed while filling up the remaining vacancies,-which are run by temporary/incharge dealers.Therefore, the contention of thepetitioner that the reservation system is not being followed as required underG.O.Ms.No.53 dated06-10-2005 is not correct.Therefore, the writpetition is liable to be dismissed.
There is no necessity to go into all the details.The statement as noticedabove itself would indicate that as many as 93 vacancies are yet to be filled upin the category of Backward Classes, whereas in the General Category thereare only two vacancies required to be filled up in the entire division. Further, theassertions made by the petitioner in the affidavit at paras 4 and 6 are notdenied.It is simply stated that 19 shops were filled up on permanent basis i.e.SC-4, ST-1, BC-1, Minorities-1 and OC-12 and the remaining 6 shops will haveto be filled up duly observing the rule of reservation in accordance withG.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06-10-2003.This statement of the respondent seems to benot correct.The statement as noticed above would clearly indicate that thebacklog vacancies in the Backward Classes are huge in number.They requireto be given preference to that of General Category for the purpose of followingthe rule of reservation as per G.O.Ms.No.53 dated06-10-2003.However,this Court entertained a doubt as to the exact population of the village, whichcould be one of the criteria for reserving the vacancy for General Category, and the learned Government Pleader was directed to get the information for thepurpose of consideration as to whether the authorities have reasonablyconsidered for reserving this vacancy to the General Category.The learnedGovernment Pleader, when the matter reached in the morning and in theafternoon, stated that he is not able to get the information as to the exactpopulation of the village.
Conclusion
For all the above reasons, I deem it appropriate that the vacancy that isnotified under the impugned notification requires to be considered for beingreserved for B.C. Candidates since 93 Backlog Vacancies are available, to giveeffect to G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06-10-2003.
In view of the above, the impugned notification is set aside and the-respondent is directed to reconsider the matter for notifying the vacancy for B.C.candidates.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.No order as to costs.
26-12-2006.IBL
______________
C.V. RAMULU, J