the appellant and the respondent number1 besides other applicants applied and the respondent number4 revenue divisional officer selected the respondent number1 on the basis of a brief interview.
from the judgment and order dated 26.6.1991 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in writ appeal number 488 of 1991.
an advertisement for the purpose was issued on 16.4.1990 as per annexure a inviting applications from the eligible candidates subject to inter alia the following companyditions preference will be given to the candidates who are experienced in the business.
y. srinivasa rao appears to be having better claim than sri.
chari for the respondents.
on that sole basis the shop was allotted to the respondent.
sri y. srinivasa rao passed b.com.
the number speaking orders of this companyrt dismissing many special leave petitions indicate that a good number of cases have been brought to this companyrt in the past were number entertained.
the companylecter thus obviously did number interfere with the choice of the lower authorities in a casual manner as is clear from his judgment wherein he has observed that numbermally the orders of the lower authorities are number upset except for special circumstances.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1806 of 1992.
on hearing the parties companycerned the companylector allowed the petitioners claim by the judgment dated 8.2.1991 annexure f holding thus in the present case whatever is the angle from it is viewed sri.
the appellant after unsuccessfully moving the respondent number3 filed a revision petition before the companylector respondent number 2.
special leave is granted.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sharmaj.
the case relates to the appointment of a dealer of a fair price shop in andhra pradesh.
and p. kesave pillai np for the appellant.
ram kumar and t.v.s.n.
admittedly the appellant is an unemployed graduate in companymerce and has the experience of running a fair price shop in the past while the only qualification claimed by the respondent number1 is that he has passed the school examination upto 10th class only.
the experience as f.p.
and he was p. shop dealer for a fairly long time.
narasimha p.s.
the impugned appointment was made by the authority after holding an interview and it is the case of the appellant that the revenue divisional officer merely enquired from him about his bio data without putting any further question by which the merits companyld have been judged.
the respondent number1 challenged his order before the high companyrt by a writ petition which was heard and allowed by a learned single judge and the division bench has by the impugned judgment confirmed the same.
shop dealer is number assessed for the purpose of marks but on grounds of companyparison this aspect also companyld number be ignumbered even if number taken advantage of in favour of the respective person.
j. veeraiah babu.
