Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
Y. SRINIVASA RAO
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
J. VEERAIAH AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/04/1992
BENCH:
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
BENCH:
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
ANAND, A.S. (J)
CITATION:
1993 AIR 929 1992 SCR (2) 780
1992 SCC (3) 63 JT 1992 (3) 84
1992 SCALE (1)935
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 14-Settlement of fair price shops-Appointment
of dealer-Basis for selection-Eligibility criteria-Prefer-
ence given to less educated persons over persons with
higher educational qualification-Whether violative of.
HEADNOTE:
In response to an advertisement calling for
applications for appointment of dealer of a fair price shop,
the appellant and the respondent No.1 applied along with
many others. Appellant, a Commerce graduate had experience
in running fair price shop, whereas respondent No.1 has
passed 10th class only. On the bsis of a brief interview,
responent No. 1 was selected. Appellant moved Respondent
No.3, but was not successful. Later, he preferred a Revision
Petition before the Collector, who allowed his claim. Re-
spondent No.1 challenged the said order before the High
Court, which was allowed by a Single Judge and later con-
firmed by a Division Bench. Aggrieved against the High
Court’s order, the appellant has preferred the present
appeal.
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that there
was no guideline indicating the nature of the interview
which was the sole basis for making a choice for the
settlement of the fair price shops.
The respondents contended that less educated persons
were given preference as they were handicapped by reason of
lack of education as compared to better qualified
applicants. It was further contended that since a highly
educated person may get a better job, he may not be able to
run the shop on a permanent basis.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD : 1. The decision to prefer an uneducated person
over an educated person amounts to allowing premium on
ignorance, incom-
781
petence and consequently inefficiency. The only fault of the
appellant is to have pursued his studies beyond 10th class.
If he had discontinued his career as a student even earlier,
say after passing 7th or 8th class, he would have been
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
running the shop today. This clearly amounts to gross arbi-
trariness and, therefore, illegal discrimination. Pursuing
this line the State will have to be going in search of a
more inefficient and illiterate or semi literate person and
nobody knows where this process would end. On the assertion
that a better qualified person has got a better chance to
succeed in life, an intelligent applicant who can run the
shop efficiently should be rejected and a dim witted fellow
should be selected would be an absurd situation. [784 C-E]
2. That a better qualified person is not likely to
stick to the job, is not spelt out by the Government Orders.
In any event, with a view to ensure that a person not
interested in running the business may not obtain the set-
tlement of the shop merely on the basis of his qualifica-
tions, care may be taken to impose appropriate conditions,
by restricting the choice to local inhabitants, and, or
requiring furnishing of guarantee for running the business
for a minimum number of years. [784 F, G]
3. So far the interview fixed as the sole criterion in
the present case, the same in the absence of guidelines
leaves the matter to the whims of the individual officer
holding the interview. The exercise of such unbridled power,
will be clearly violative of Article 14. Therefore, the
policy adopted by the State Government is unconstitutional.
[784 G,H; 785 A]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1806 of
1992.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.6.1991 of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 488 of 1991.
Narasimha P.S. and P. Kesave Pillai (NP) for the
Appellant.
K. Ram Kumar and T.V.S.N. Chari for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHARMA,J. Special leave is granted.
2. The case relates to the appointment of a dealer of a
fair price shop
782
in Andhra Pradesh. 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 conditions:-
"5. Preference will be given to the candidates who
are experienced in the business.
6. Preference will be given to unemployed educated
persons, ladies and handicapped persons in case of
equal qualifications among the candidates."
The appellant and the respondent No.1, besides other
applicants applied and the respondent No.4, Revenue
Divisional Officer, selected the Respondent No.1 on the
basis of a brief interview. The appellant, after
unsuccessfully moving the respondent NO.3, filed a revision
petition before the Collector respondent No. 2. On hearing
the parties concerned, the Collector allowed the
petitioner’s 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. Y. Srinivasa Rao appears to be
having better claim than Sri. J. Veeraiah Babu.
Sri Y. Srinivasa Rao passed B.Com., and he was
F.P. shop dealer for a fairly long time. The
experience as F.P. shop dealer is now assessed for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
the purpose of marks, but on grounds of comparison
this aspect also could not be ignored even if not
taken advantage of in favour of the respective
person.
The Collecter, thus, obviously did not interfere with
the choice of the lower authorities in a casual manner as is
clear from his judgment wherein he has observed that
normally the orders of the lower authorities are not upset
except for special circumstances. The respondent No.1
challenged his order before the High Court 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.
3. Admittedly the appellant is an unemployed graduate
in Commerce and has the experience of running a fair price
shop in the past, while the only qualification claimed by
the respondent No.1, is that he has passed the school
examination upto 10th class only. The impugned appointment
783
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 could have
been judged. On that sole basis the shop was allotted to the
respondent. Considering the criteria, as mentioned in the
advertisement, the Collector accepted the claim of the
appellant, pointing out that the appellant was a better
candidate from every angle. The High Court has quashed his
judgment by condemning it as perverse but without indicating
any reason for such a view.
4. One of the questions, which have been raised before
this Court, is that there is no guideline indicating the
nature of the interview which is said to be the sole basis
for making a choice for the settlement of the fair price
shops. In pursuance of the notice which was issued in the
present special leave petition, indicating that the matter
would be finally disposed of on the next date, the
respondents appeared and a prayer was made by the State
counsel for three weeks’ time to get ready on the question
as to how the interview without indicating any guideline
could be validly adopted as the sole basis for selection.
Time was granted for filing an additional affidavit
explaining the situation, but no such affidavit has been
filed. The learned State counsel has, however, relied upon a
number of Government orders issued in this regard from time
to time and contended that in the opinion of the State
authorities in the matter of settlement of fair price shops
in the villages, which are not as large as in towns,
preference should be given to less educated persons as they
are handicapped by reason of lack of education as compared
to better qualified applicants. He developed his argument by
saying that since a highly educated person is likely to
obtain a better job, he may not be depended upon for
running the shop on a permanent basis. He has relied upon
the policy decision that "only unemployed persons shall be
eligible for appointment as fair price shop dealers instead
of giving preference to Co-operatives" as mentioned in the
Government Order No. 951 dated 16.5.1988. This Order, howev-
er, does not advance the case of the respondents. He has
also referred to another Government Order issued subsequent-
ly which give support to his argument that preference has to
be given to less educated persons. The learned counsel
pointed out that in none of the government Orders weightage
was allowed to the educational qualifications of the candi-
dates and the advertisement (Annexure A) was incorrectly
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
issued mentioning preference in favour of a better educated
person. The Collector should have ignored the
784
conditions mentioned in the advertisement and should have
respected the choice of the interviewing officer.
5. It appears that the question of settlement of fair
price shops in the State of Andhra Pradesh has been the
subject of controversy for some time and from the records of
the Revenue Department it is manifest that the approach
which has been adopted by the authorities has not been
consistent. The non-speaking orders of this Court dismissing
many special leave petitions indicate that a good number of
cases have been brought to this Court in the past were not
entertained. We have, therefore, considered it desirable to
indicate our views on the policy adopted by the State in the
light of the constitutional provisions.
6. The decision to prefer an uneducated person over an
educated persons amounts to allowing premium on ignorance,
incompetence and consequently inefficiency. The only fault
of the appellant is to have pursued his studies beyond 10th
class. If he had discontinued his career as a student even
earlier, say after passing 7th or 8th class, he would have
been running the shop today. This clearly amounts to gross
arbitrariness, and, therefore, illegal discrimination.
Pursuing this line the State will have to be going in search
of a more inefficient person and we do not know where this
process would end. If we assume that since a better quali-
fied person has got a better chance to succeed in life, an
intelligent applicant who can run the shop efficiently
should be rejected and a dim witted fellow should be select-
ed. This is an absurd situation.
7. The argument of the learned State counsel that a
better qualified person is not likely to stick to the job,
is not spelt out by Government Orders. In any event, with a
view to ensure that a person not interested in running the
business may not obtain the settlement of the shop merely on
the basis of his qualifications can be taken care of by
imposing appropriate conditions, say, by restricting the
choice to local inhabitants, and, or requiring furnishing of
guarantee for running the business for a number of years.
We, therefore, do not find any rationale in adopting the
policy as indicated on behalf of the respondent. So far the
interview fixed as the sole criterion in the present case
according to the impugned judgment is concerned, the same in
absence of a guideline leaves the matter to the whims of the
individual officer holding the interview. The exercise of
such unbridled power, will be clearly violative of Article
14. The policy referred to by
785
by the State counsel as contained in one of the Government
Orders and relied upon before us in support of the impugned
judgment, therefore, must held to be unconstitutional.
8. In the circumstances, the settlement in favour of the
respondent No.1 is quashed, the judgment of the High Court
is set aside and the judgment of the Collector having the
support of the advertisement in question is restored. We
expect that the State, after taking into consideration all
the legal and relevant aspects, shall expeditiously take a
decision and issue an appropriate Order dealing with settle-
ment of fair price shops, and not follow the unconstitution-
al instruction relied upon before us. The appeal is accord-
ingly allowed, but in the circumstances the parties are
directed to bear their own costs.
G.N. Appeal allowed.
786
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5