VYAS, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25/4/2006 (Annex. 9) and order dated 20/9/2006 (Annex. 12 ). Further, it is prayed that the order dated 7/10/2005 (Annex. 13) issued by the State Government to the extent it provides for constitution of advisory committee and making its recommendation on the point to the District Collector may kindly be quashed and set aside because the same being contrary to the Order of 1976. Further, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the recommendation made for allotment by the Allotment Advisory Committee on 15/2/2006 and further direction to the respondents to appoint him as a retailer of the Fair Price Shop of Village Dangawas as he falls in priority than Shri Deva Ram as per Notification Annex. 5.
(2.) THE facts leading to this case are that the petitioner being & member of Schedule Caste and an orthopaedically disabled person having qualification of secondary from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan applied for Fair Price Shop in village Dangawas District Nagaur in pursuance of notification issued by District Collector (Supply), Nagaur on 18/10/2005 (Annex. 5 ). According to the petitioner, he fulfills the criteria laid down under the Notification for appointment as Retailer (Fair Price Shop ). Along with petitioner persons namely; Surendra Danga (Graduate), Khinya Ram (10th Pass), Inder Raj Meghwal (Graduate), Ram Narayan (9th Pass), Mangla Ram (XI Pass) and respondent no. 4, Deva Ram also applied for appointment as Retailership. According to petitioner, respondent no. 4 Deva Ram is only 8th Pass and has not filed any certificate of school along with the application. The petitioner and other persons appeared for interview on 15/2/2006 at 10 am before the District Supply Officer, Nagaur vide call letter dated 16/1/2006. In the aforesaid process, respondent no. 4 Deva Ram was selected and appointed as retailer. According to the petitioner, the appointment of respondent no. 4 Deva Ram is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the norms and criteria laid down by the Government in the notification Annex. 5 dated 18/10/2005. In the said notification priorities for appointment of retailer are mentioned, which reads as under:      " A. Educated Unemployed B. Persons belonging to Scheduled Caste/tribe C. Women, widow and divorced women D. Ex-soldier or his widow. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 4 Deva Ram does not fall in any of the categories but he was selected as per the recommendation of the Advisory Committee by the District Collector. The order of appointment of respondent no. 4 was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing writ petition before this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2709/2006. In the said writ petition, this Court while admitting the petition interim order was granted, whereby, the order of allotment issued in favour of respondent no. 4 was stayed. Thereafter, aforesaid writ petition came up for orders on an application filed by respondent no. 4 under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India. Ultimately, the said writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 10/7/2006 by this Court by observing that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal. While dismissing that writ petition, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file appeal and to raise all the grounds raised in the writ petition. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, petitioner filed appeal before the Food Commissioner/additional Food Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the appeal filed by the petitioner was not decided on merit and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal only on the ground that since the Allotment Advisory Committee unanimously recommended to appoint respondent no. 4 as Fair Price Shopkeeper, therefore, the District Collector is under obligation to accept the recommendation made by the Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the action of the respondents is highly arbitrary because the allotting authority is the District Collector and under the Notification Annex. 5 priorities were fixed by the Government for allotment of Fair Price Shops then at the time of allotment, District Collector is under obligation to follow the said priorities but while passing the order of allotment, the District Collector has followed the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, which is erroneous. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 4 is less meritorious than him and cannot be allotted Fair Price Shop as per priorities, if the same are taken care of while considering case for allotment. According to the petitioner, he is handicapped person, so also belongs to Scheduled Caste category and possesses the qualification of Secondary School, therefore, his case was to be considered in first category of `educated unemployed' but the respondents have not so considered his case and illegally allotted fair price shop to respondent no. 4 Deva Ram. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, admittedly, Deva Ram cannot be considered more meritorious than the petitioner in the category of `educated unemployed' because respondent no. 4 is only 8th pass.
(3.) THE respondent no. 4 while filing reply to the writ petition specifically mentioned that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that allegation of malafides have been levelled against the M. P. , Nagaur but he has not been impleaded as party respondent. Further it is pointed out that on the basis of principle of estoppal the petitioner cannot question the decision of selection committee, while challenging the selection process. According to the respondent no. 4, petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, therefore, his conduct disentitles him to get any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that judicial review is not permissible against a decision of expert committee under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Since in the present case, Advisory Allotment Committee being expert committee recommended the case of respondent no. 4 and pursuant thereto he was appointed as retailer, therefore, there is no illegality in allotment made in his favour. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 while citing certain judgments submitted that High Court cannot interfere under its supervisory jurisdiction to correct any error of law, so also this Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the discretion exercised by the competent authority and the finding given of the appellate Court. According to the respondent no. 4, the decision of Advisory Allotment Committee for granting license after adjudging suitability cannot be questioned because it is for the administrative authority to take final decision. Therefore, executive orders passed by Executive Authorities exercising its discretion cannot be questioned, so also this court cannot interfere in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that this petition has been filed by misunderstanding the law, as if there is no delegation of power under the Rajasthan Food Grains & Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976. It is further submitted that petitioner may be belonging to Scheduled Caste category and Handicapped person but at the time of adjudging the suitability the respondents found that petitioner is not fit to execute the work of distribution of fair price articles, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected and allotment of fair price shop has rightly been made in favour of respondent no. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 also placed reliance on number of judgments on above point. The learned counsel for the State while inviting attention towards sub-clause (gha) of instructions issued by the State Government for allotment of Fair Price Shop submitted that petitioner has misconstrued the same, so also no incorrect information was given by the selected person, therefore, the decision of the Allotment Committee cannot be termed as violative of provisions of Order, 1976. According to the learned Government Advocate, there is no illegality in allotment so also the allotment has rightly been made in favour of respondent no. 4 while following the procedure laid down for allotment of Fair Price Shop. The State Government has also issued instructions and the Allotment Advisory Committee while adjudging the priorities as per instruction, rightly recommended the case of respondent no. 4 for allotment of Fair Price Shop and the recommendation so made was in consonance with the instructions issued by the State Government for the purpose of allotment of Fair Price Shop. It is further argued that petitioner cannot claim priority over the categories mentioned in the instructions being Scheduled Caste or handicapped person. Ofcourse, a person belonging to scheduled caste can claim priority in the matter of allotment of Fair Price Shop but it is at serial no. 2 in the priority list. In the present case, allotment has been made in the first category, therefore, the petitioner's contention that the allotment has wrongly been made in favour of respondent no. 4 is absolutely wrong. Therefore, the petitioner is agitating the baseless grounds before this Court which are absolutely not available to him and the writ petition may be dismissed. ;