Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Shiv Pal Singh against order dated 17.01.2013 by which allotment of fair price shop has been made in favour of Respondent No. 5, Annapurna Mahila Sahakari Samiti Limited. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that aforesaid allotment has been made in breach of the procedure contained in the guidelines. Clause 1 (kha)(ii) of the guidelines inter alia provides that the applicant should be generally 12th standard pass and should have basic knowledge of computer and acquired basic training of computer for three months from Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Limited or equivalent Institution. It is contended that the selection was to be made on the basis of merit thereby giving preference to the candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no office bearer of the Respondent No. 5 -society was having qualification of 12th standard. One Smt. Raju Devi has been made Manager of Respondent No. 5 -Society by resolution passed on 04.09.2013 much subsequent to the aforesaid order dated 17.01.2013, therefore, allotment of fair price shop to Respondent No. 5 cannot be said to be legal.
(2.) LEARNED counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents have submitted that Smt. Raju Devi was member of Respondent No. 5 -Society on the date of passing of impugned order dated 17.01.2013. It is only to ensure smooth functioning of the fair price shop that she has been appointed Manager subsequently. Learned counsels have referred to the relevant guidelines, especially Clause 1(Kha)(ii) of the guidelines and Clause 3(Ka)(i) of the Rajasthan Food Grains and Other Essential Commodities Order, 1976 and contended that highest priority has to be given to the women self aided group, who are selected/recognised by Women and Child Development Department, Government of Rajasthan. As regards eligibility, according to the instructions, one of the member of the society should be having eligibility qualification. Smt. Raju Devi was already member of the society much before passing of impugned order and, therefore, subsequently, she has been appointed as Manager and that would not, in any manner, invalidate the impugned order. Learned counsels of for the respondents submitted that in fact earlier allotment of fair price shop was made to the petitioner illegally and Respondent No. 5 preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16414/2012 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 26.10.2012 disposed of writ petition requiring the Respondent No. 5 -society to approach the Food Commissioner, Department of Food & Civil Supply, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, who was asked to pass fresh order after hearing both the petitioner herein and Respondent No. 5.
(3.) PERUSAL of the impugned order as also order dated 26.10.2012 passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition would indicate that originally allotment was made in favour of the petitioner, which was assailed by the Respondent No. 5 contending that as per the recommendation of the committee and the guidelines of the State Government, preference was to be given to the society which is a women self aided group. The petitioner has been placed at a lower place than Respondent No. 5 in the order of preference. It is also not disputed that Smt. Raju Devi was already member when the aforesaid order of allotment was passed on 17.01.2013. Smt. Raju Devi also holds the eligibility qualification. In these circumstances, when the impugned order has been passed after due application of mind and hearing both the petitioner as well as Respondent No. 5, no interference can be made by this Court in that order.;