DILUBHAI ODHABHAI BASIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. HH Parikh learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 and Mr. Gondaliya learned Counsel waives service of notice for No. 4. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today.

(2.) THE short facts of the case appear to be that an advertisement was issued for allotment of Fair Price Shop authorisation, at village Mota Ujala, in Amreli in the year 2004. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4, applied for allotment of the Fair Price Shop. It may be recorded that the advertisement was for general category, and it was not for reserved category. The Taluka Level Committee as well as District Level Committee recommended the name of respondent No. 4, for allotment and ultimately the authorisation came to be granted in favour of the respondent No. 4 by the District Collector vide order dated 2. 3. 2005. The petitioner had carried the matter before the State Government in Appeal being Appeal No. 21 of 2005. The State Government ultimately, after hearing both the sides, did found that the qualification of the petitioner is higher. However, the State Government took the view that as the advertisement was for general category, and the petitioner is belonging to Social and Economical Backward Class Category, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for allotment of the Fair Price Shop. Therefore, the appeal has been dismissed. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by the present petition.

(3.) HEARD Mr. Parekh learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Parikh learned AGP for the State Authorities and Mr. Gondaliya learned Counsel for respondent No. 4. It appears that on factual aspect, so far as the advertisement, application made by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4, the recommendation by Taluka Level Committee, as well as the District Level Committee, there is no dispute. The Collector has acted upon the recommendation of the Taluka and District Level Committees. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner is holding higher educational qualification than respondent No. 4. There were only two applicants which are apparent from the order of the State Government. Therefore, the only aspect to be considered is whether the State Government was justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground that the petitioner belongs to reserved category of OBC, and the advertisement was for general category.