Y. SRINIVASA RAO versus J. VEERAIAH AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 780 · Decided: 27-04-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
Y. SRINIVASA RAO 
v. 
J. VEERAIAH AND ORS. 
APRIL 27, 1992 
B 
[L. M. SHARMA AND A.S. ANAND, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 14-Settlement of fair price shops-Appointment of 
C dealer-Basis for selection-Eligibility criteria-Preference given to less edu-
cated persons over persons with higher educational qualification-Whether 
violative of. 
In respons~ to an advertisement calling for applications for appoint· 
ment of dealer of a fair price shop, the appellant and the respondent No.1 -k. 
D applied along with many others. Appellant, a Commerce graduate had 
experience in running fair price shop, whereas respondent No.1 has passed 
10th class only. On the basis of ~ brief interview, respondent No.1 was 
selected. Appellant moved Respondent No.3, but was not successful. Later, 
he preferred a Revision Petition before the Collector, who allowed his 
claim. Respondent No.1 challenged the said order before the High Court, 
E which was allowed by a Single Judge and later confirmed by a Division 
Bench. Aggrieved against the High Court's order, the appellant has 
preferred the present appeal. 
----< 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that there was no 
F 
guideline indicating the nature of the interview which was the sole basis 
for making a choice for the settlement of the fair price shops. 
~
The respondents contended that less educated persons were given 
preference as they were handicapped by reason of lack of education as 
compared to better qualified applicants. It was further contended that r .>.--
G since a highly educated person may get a better job, he may not be able to 
run the shop on a permanent basis. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD : 1. The decision to prefer an uneducated person over an 
H 
educated person amounts to allowing premium on ignorance, incom-
A 
780 
-t• 
SRINIVASA RAO v. J. VEERAIAH [SHARMA, J.] 
781 
petence and consequently inefficiency. The only fault of the appellant is to A 
have pursued ht. studies beyond 10th class. If he had discontinued his 
career as a student even earlier, say after passing 7th or 8th class, he would 
have been running the shop today. This clearly amounts to gross arbitrari-
ness and, therefore, illegal discrimination. Pursuing this line the State will 
have to be going in search of a more inefficient and illiterate or semi 
literate person and nobody knows where this process would end. On the 
assumption that a better qualified person has got a better chance to 
succeed in life, an intelligent applicant who can run the shop efficiently 
should be rejected and a dim witted fellow should be selected would be an 
absurd situation. (784 C-E] 
B 
2. That a better qualified person is not likely to stick to the.job, is 
not spelt out by the Government Orders. In any event, with a view to ensure 
that a person not interested in running the business may not obtain the 
settlement of the shop merely on the basis of his qualifir.ations, care may 
c 
be taken to impose appropriate conditions, by restricting the chocie to 
local inhabitants, and, or requiring furnishing of guarantee for running D 
the business for a minimum number of years. (784 F, G] 
3. So far the interview fixed as the sole criterion in the present case, 
the same in the absence of guidelines leaves the matter to the whims of the 
individual officer holding the interview. The exercise of such unbridled E 
power, will be clearly violative of Article 14. Therefore, the policy adopted 
by the State Government is unconstitutional. [784 G, H; 785 A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1806 of 
1992. 
From the Judgment and Order. dated 26.6.1991 of the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 488 of 1991. 
Narasimha P.S .. and P. Kesave Pillai (NP) for the Appellant. 
K. Ram Kumar and T.V.S.N. Chari for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
G 
,A'-
SHARMA, J. Special leave is granted. 
2. The case relates to the appointment of a dealer of a fair price shop H 
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
in And.bra Pradesh. An advertisement for the purpose was issued on 
J-
16.4.1990 as per annexure A inviting applications from the eligible Can-
didates subject to, inter alia, the following conditions:-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
"5. Preference will be given to the candidates who are ex-
perienced in the business. 
6. Preference will be given to unemployed educated persons, 
·ladies and handicapped persons in case of equal qualifications 
among t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.