THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 20818 OF 2007 Dated 22nd June, 2010 Between: I.Madhava Reddy …Petitioner And The District Collector and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.S.R.Murthy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notification dated 25.08.2007, whereby the fair price shop of Parlapalli Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Nellore District was reserved for Scheduled Caste category, as arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06.10.2003. I have heard Sri V.S.R.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner, who belongs to O.C. category, was working as fair price shop dealer of the abovementioned village on temporary basis. Respondent No.3 issued notification dated 25.08.2007 calling for applications for appointment of dealers on permanent basis in respect of 20 shops. The fair price shop of Parlapalli Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Nellore District is also one such shop for which applications were invited. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said shop which was made available for O.C candidates earlier was reserved for S.C. candidates. According to the petitioner, out of 20 shops notified, 11 shops were shown as reserved and that as the reservation exceeds 50%, the same is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06.10.2003, which has placed a maximum ceiling of 50% for reserved categories. On behalf of the respondents, respondent No.3, who is Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Nellore District, filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that in working out reservations, revenue division is taken as a unit and that in all there are 614 fair price shops in Kavali Town. He has given the details of various categories of persons functioning as dealers. According to the said details, while 95 dealers are required from the S.C category to satisfy 15% reservation, there are presently 90 dealers belonging to that category and therefore, five vacancies needed to be filled up with the persons belonging to the said category. The plea of the petitioner that reservation for 11 vacancies out of 20 vacancies violates G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06.10.2003 is denied by stating that the percentage of reservation requires to be worked out by taking the vacancies available in the entire division and not with reference to the individual notifications issued for filling up the vacancies. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the impugned notification reserving fair price shop in question for S.C category by converting from O.C category is not valid. The learned counsel further submitted that even according to the respondents 32 O.C vacancies are available as against 5 S.C vacancies and that therefore, reserving the existing O.C shop for S.C. category is arbitrary. I do not find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel. It is not in dispute that the abovementioned G.O provided for 15% reservation for S.C candidates. The petitioner also has not disputed that the division shall be taken as a unit and at present 5 vacancies in S.C category are in existence. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that while working out the reservation and while identifying the fair price shops for implementing the policy of reservation, any particular method is prescribed and that in reserving the shop in question, the respondents have violated such a method. Admittedly, in S.C category there are 5 vacancies while in O.C category there are 32 vacancies. In the absence of any particular method specified by the Government, it is for the authority concerned to identify shops for the purpose of working out the reservations. While doing so, the competent authority needs to take into consideration various factors such as the urgency to fill up the reserved quota, the population of the persons belonging to reserved category in a particular village, so on and so forth. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to indicate any particular method, which suits his convenience. As the petitioner failed to point out infraction of any of the statutory provisions or guidelines in reserving the fair price shop in question for the candidates belonging to S.C category, this Court cannot interfere with the decision taken by the respondents in this regard. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order dated 04.10.2007 is vacated. WPMP No.26998 of 2007 and WVMP No.1698 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 22nd June, 2010 vrn