IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 26687 of 2003 BETWEEN: M. Thirupathamma, W/o Ramanaiah, R/o Jammavaram Village, A.S. Peta Mandal, Nellore District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nellore. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ or Order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the notification issued by the 2nd respondent in RCC/1070/2003, dated 24-11-2003, in so far as inviting applications to appoint the fair price shop dealer to the fair price shop at Jammavaram Village, A.S. Peta Mandal, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.C.VANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner submits that she has been appointed as fair price shop dealer in 1996 of Jammavaram Village, A.S. Peta Mandal, Nalgonda District. While so, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a notification dated 24.11.2003 calling upon the applications to appoint fair price shop dealer to the said shop reserved in favour of BC-women. The petitioner submits that as she has already been working as fair price shop dealer, calling upon applications for appointment of a new dealer is illegal and arbitrary. 2. Counter has been filed stating that the petitioner was appointed as temporary fair price shop dealer on 13.04.1995 as the permanent fair price shop dealer failed to discharge his duties property and his authorization was cancelled on 30.10.1995. Therefore, to fill up the vacancy on permanent basis a notification was issued on 27.01.1996, questioning the same, the petitioner filed WP.No.4552 of 1996 and obtained stay, as such, the permanent dealer could not be appointed. Thereafter, the writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 11.12.2002 and accordingly the present notification dated 24.11.2003 has been issued inviting applications for filling up the vacancy on permanent basis reserved for BC-women category. 3. I am of the opinion that the petitioner was working purely on temporary basis and admittedly, there was no regular selection made. Merely because the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis, it cannot be said that a right has accrued in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has no right to question or stall the notification issued calling for appointment of permanent dealer and any renewal of the temporary dealership will not enure any right in favour of the petitioner to question the said notification. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 17, 2008 DSK