Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13885/2010 3/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13885 of
2010
=========================================================
PATEL
BHARTIBEN SHAILESHBHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DISTRICT
SUPPLY OFFICER & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AM PAREKH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
Ms. Jirga
Jhaveri, AGP for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 25/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned Advocate Mr. Dave for learned Advocate Mr. AM Parekh for
petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for respondent State
Authority.
Brief
facts of present petition, as narrated by petitioner in list of
dates and events are noted as under:
On
20.7.2009, according to petitioner, an advertisement was published
by respondent no.2 for allotment of fair price shop to General
Swasahay Juth. In said advertisement itself, it is clearly stated
that 50 per cent shops shall be allotted to local educationally
unemployed and 50 per cent shall be allotted to Local Swasahay Juth
and hence only local educationally unemployed candidates/local
swasahay juth shall be entitled to make application. According to
petitioner, in said advertisement, it is also clearly stated that
first priority shall be given to Women Swasahay Juth is not
available, then, the application for educationally unemployed
candidates shall be considered as second priority and if
educationally unemployed candidates are not available, application
for cooperative societies shall be considered in accordance with
prevailing rules and regulations as third category. Thus, on non
availability of women swasahay juth, respondent no.2 was duty bound
to consider applications of petitioner being educationally
unemployed candidate.
The
petitioner states that the petitioner being a local candidate and
educationally unemployed having requisite qualification and
fulfilling required criteria mentioned in the advertisement, made an
application for allotment of fair price shop for village Sankarda
(Vadodara Rural) (General Swasahay Juth) Sr. NO.3 in advertisement
in category of educationally unemployed candidate as mentioned in
advertisement since in the advertisement itself, respondent No.2 has
stated that 50 per cent shops shall be allotted to candidate
belonging to educationally unemployed candidate. According to
petitioner, since no application was received from swasahay Juth,
District Supply and Customer Protection Advisory Committee in its
meeting held on 6.2.2010, resolved and decided to issue fresh
advertisement. According to petitioner, since no application was
received from Swasahay Juth, respondent No.2 on the basis of
decision of District Supply and Customer Protection Advisory
Committee in its meeting held on 6.2.2010 resolved and decided to
issue fresh advertisement, respondent no.2 rejected application of
petitioner vide order dated 16.4.2010 holding that advertisement was
issued for Women Swasahay Juth and no candidate is available from
said category and hence it was decided to issue fresh advertisement
and hence application of petitioner for allotment of fair price shop
is rejected. Against said decision of respondent no.2 dated
16.4.2010, petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no.3
being appeal no. 38/2010 wherein petitioner submitted written
arguments before respondent no.3 stating that petitioner is local
resident, educationally unemployed and as per advertisement itself,
if candidate from women swasahay is not available, then, case of
educationally unemployed candidate is required to be considered as
second priority and hence the decision to issue fresh advertisement
on the ground that no candidate from Swasahay Juth is available is
illegal and same would be wastage of time and public money and would
be unnecessary burden on State Exchequer, as per the advertisement
itself, case of petitioner being educationally unemployed, is
required to be considered. However, respondent no.3 rejected
revision application preferred by petitioner holding that
advertisement was issued for General Swasahay Juth and not for
educationally unemployed candidate and hence respondent no.2 has
rightly rejected application of the petitioner being educationally
unemployed candidate. Therefore, against said decision of respondent
no.2 and 3 as referred to above, petitioner has filed this petition
before this Court.
In
this case, learned advocate Mr. Dave submitted mainly that
advertisement which was issued, page 22 where Fair Price Shop is to
be opened in each village, 50 per cent from local unemployed
educated candidate and remaining 50 per cent fair price shop for
local swasahay juth, therefore, applications were invited from both
categories. Priority was to be given to women swasahay juth and in
case if local swasahay juth candidate is not available, then, it
will be given to educated unemployed local candidate where it has
been decided that in respect to Sankarda Taluka District Baroda, no
application is received from Local Samanya Swasahay Juth category
and priority is to be given to women swasahay juth and, therefore,
it has been unanimously decided by all the committee members to
re-advertise for allotment of fair price shop. On that basis
application made by petitioner has been rejected by respondent no.2.
Notification has been issued by Collector, Baroda on 20th
July, 2009 inviting application for fair price shop[ for village
Sankarda. In Statement-1 at item No.3 of advertisement, against
village Sankarda, category of Samanya Swasahay Juth has been
mentioned. Except that category, no other category is entitled to
make application and, therefore, respondent no.2 rejected claim of
petitioner. Therefore, petitioner being aggrieved by decision of
respondent no.2 District Collector, Baroda dated 16th
April, 2010 approached Revisional Authority by filing revision
application no. 38 of 2010 who decided it on 24th June,
2010 considering Government Resolution dated 21.8.2006 and also
considered notification dated 20th July, 2009 where in
Statement I, item no.3, against village Sankarda, category of
Samanya Swasahay Juth has been mentioned, means it has been reserved
for Samanya Swasahay Juth Category, therefore, local educated
unemployed candidate is not entitled to make such application in
respect to village Sankarda as per notification dated 20th
July, 2009 and, therefore, on that basis, revision application which
has been made by petitioner has been rejected by respondent no.3.
Page 23 notification which has been issued in respect to area except
in Baroda Municipal Corporation in Statement-I. Against village
Sankarda, category specified is Samanya Swasahay Juth. Grievance
raised by petitioner that petitioner is entitled for consideration
on the ground that petitioner being local educated unemployed
candidate because 50 per cent : 50 per cent has been bifurcated.
However, this fact is found from record to be incorrect because
specific notification has been issued wherein in statement-I page
23, village Sankarda is meant for General Swasahay Juth and it has
not been made applicable to any local educated unemployed
candidate and, therefore, according to my opinion, contention raised
by learned advocate Mr. Dave for petitioner cannot be accepted
simply on the ground that advertisement is specified for General
Swasahay Juth in respect to village Sankarda and petitioner is not
covered by said category and, therefore, District Collector, Baroda
has rightly passed order dated 16.4.2010 and revision application
preferred by petitioner against said order has been rightly rejected
by revisional authority respondent no.3 by order dated 24.6.2010 and
therefore, no interference is necessary because petitioner is not
entitled to make such application in respect to village Sankarda as
it has been specified for General Swasahay Juth and it is not meant
for local educated unemployed candidate and, therefore, no error has
been committed by respondent no.2 and 3 in deciding matter and,
therefore, there is no substance in this petition and hence this
petition is dismissed.
(H.K.
Rathod,J.)
Vyas
Top