Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 703
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SARATH, J.
S. Narmada – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 16878 of 2023
Decided On : 14-03-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Y. Ashok Raj
For the Respondents: Challa Srinivasa Reddy and GP
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of due process and natural justice in administrative appointments, ruling against arbitrary actions by authorities.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Appointment of Fair Price Dealer - Petitioner appointed as Fair Price Dealer but later replaced without notice - Respondents failed to provide reasons for cancellation of petitioner's appointment - Court ruled that due process was not followed, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 1, 7, 12)
(B) Eligibility Criteria - The petitioner was deemed ineligible due to her husband's previous case under Essential Commodities Act - Court found that the prior ruling allowed her husband to participate in selection, thus impacting her eligibility was unjustified. (Paras 5, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of another dealer for the same shop, arguing that she was appointed through a proper selection process and had been working for over two months without any notice of cancellation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned orders were issued without due process and lacked justification, thus ruling in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the appointment orders issued without notice and the justification for the petitioner's ineligibility based on her husband's past.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the respondents must follow due process and provide reasons for any cancellation of appointments, reaffirming the principles of natural justice.
Result: Writ petition allowed, impugned orders set aside, and petitioner reinstated as Fair Price Dealer.
ORDER :
K. Sarath, J.
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent No. 4 in appointing the respondent No. 6 as Fair Price Dealer of Chenwar Village, Maddur Mandal vide proceedings No.F/593/2022, dated 31.05.2023 as illegal, arbitrary, without following due process of law, against to the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the proceedings No.F/593/2022, dated 31.05.2023 of the respondent No. 4 by continuing the petitioner as Fair Price Dealer No. 4605029 of Chenwar Village, Maddur Mandal, Narayanpet District..."
2. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 4 issued a Notification for appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealer of Chenwar Village, Maddur Mandal, Narayanpet District along with 30 other shops and the petitioner participated in selection process and she got selected and the respondent No. 3 issued appointment orders to the petitioner on 15.03.2023. The petitioner has taken charge as Fair Price Shop Dealer for Shop No. 4605029 at Chenwar Village, Maddur Mandal, Narayanpet District and continued as Fair Price Shop Dealer. Thereafter, surprisingly, the respondent No. 4 issued impugned appointment orders to the respondent No. 6 for the same shop where the petitioner is working as on 31.05.2023. The impugned appointment orders to the respondent No. 6 is contrary to law as the petitioner appointed in regular selection process and joined duties and continued for more than two months and without issuing any notice to the petitioner, issued impugned appointment orders as contrary to the principle of natural justice. After issuing the impugned appointment orders dated 31.05.2023, the respondent No. 4 issued letter of authorization in favour of respondent No. 6 on 24.06.2023.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the action of the official respondents in issuing appointment orders to the respondent No. 6 without cancelling the appointment orders of the petitioner and without issuing notice to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested to set aside the proceedings dated 31.05.2023 issued by the respondent No. 4 and consequential allotment orders dated 24.06.2023 issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 by allowing the writ petition.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies basing on the counter averments submits that the individuals are not eligible for the appointment as Fair Price Shop dealer who involved in any case under various laws or under any of the orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or their relationship with any business or ex-dealers of Government employee etc as per G.O.M.S. No.20, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I-CCS) Department, dated 06.09.2018. In the instant case, the husband of the petitioner was a former Fair Price Shop dealer against whom a 6-A case was booked for involving in transportation of Essential Commodities in open market and his authorization was cancelled. In view of the same, the Petitioner becomes ineligible for appointment and the petitioner cannot continue as Fair Price Shop dealer of Chenwar village of Maddur Mandal and requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 adopted the arguments of the learned Assistant Government Pleader.
7. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents issued Notification calling application from the eligible candidates for appointment of Fair Price Shop Dealer and accordin
