Sharma, J. - (1.) Special leave is granted.
(2.) The case relates to the appointment of a dealer of a fair price shop 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 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 collector, 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 up to 10th class only. 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 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.;