1) Order of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, the 1st Respondent herein, dated 01-12-2007 passed in R.P.No.6/2007/CSR-7, setting aside the appointment of the petitioner as a fair price shop dealer, is challenged in this Writ Petition. Appointment has been set aside on the ground that the petitioner is the son of a Central Government employee and it is a disqualification as per the guidelines issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.53, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (C.B.I.) Department, dated 6.10.2003.

2) Applications were invited from eligible candidates for appointment of a fair price shop dealer on permanent basis for shop No.309, Vadlapudi of Visakhapatnam City, vide Notification Rc.No.348/2005 CSC-1, dated 24-12-2005. The petitioner herein and respondent No.4 were among the applicants. The petitioner is a resident of Ward No.28 in which the shop is to be located, whereas the 4th respondent is the resident of Ward No.37. The District Supply Officer (City), FAC, Visakhapatnam, conducted interview on 06-06-2006 and selected the 4th Respondent herein as the dealer vide proceedings Rc.No.348/2005 CSC-1, dated 07-06-2006. The petitioner was not selected on the ground that he had not given satisfactory replies to the questions posed to him on the Public Distribution System and other matters and that his father is working in Dockyard, whereas the 4th Respondent had answered the questions satisfactorily. Thus, the 4th Respondent was selected, though he is not the resident of ward No.28.

3) Against the said orders, the petitioner filed an appeal being A.C.No.7/2006 CSR-7 before the Joint Collector (FAC) Visakhapatnam, the 2nd Respondent herein. The Joint Collector allowed the appeal by orders dated 25-07-2007 holding that a resident of the ward in which the shop is located is entitled to be appointed in preference to a nonresident as per the guidelines issued by the State Government and accordingly set aside the appointment of the 4th Respondent and appointed the petitioner as the dealer.

4) The 4th Respondent, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Joint Collector, preferred a Revision Petition to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, the 1st Respondent herein. The 1st Respondent-District Collector set aside the orders of the Joint Collector and restored the orders of the District Supply Officer confirming the appointment of the 4th Respondent. The District Collector reversed the orders of the Joint Collector on the ground that the petitioner is disqualified for appointment as his father is a Central Government Employee, as per the guidelines issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 06-10-2003. It is against this order the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

5) Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner is a resident of the same ward where the shop is to be located, hence he ought to have been appointed in preference to the 4th Respondent, who is a resident of a different ward. He would urge that the petitioner does not suffer disqualification, though he is the son of a Central Government employee. According to him, the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 06-10-2003 postulate disqualification in the case of State Government employees’ relatives and they do not postulate covering relatives of Central Government employees.

6) Smt. Dyumani, learned counsel appearing for the 4th Respondent would refute the aforesaid contentions and urge that close relatives of Government employees, whether employed in State Government services or Central Government services, are disqualified for appointment. Both the employees stand on the same footing insofar as the disqualification, therefore no distinction is postulated in the guidelines giving exemption to the relatives of the Central Government employees. She would therefore contend that the 4th Respondent, who alone remained in the field with the required qualification, was rightly app