IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24801 of 2007 Between: R. Anil Kumar … Petitioner AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Srinivas Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Civil Supplies This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24801 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in issuing notification dated 15.11.2007 for appointment of permanent dealer for fair price shop No.3 of Atmakur Village and Mandal, Anantapur District under ST (General), as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. Heard Sri K. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner was appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer for the abovementioned shop consequent on suspension of the authorized regular dealer by order dated 06.01.2004. A reading of the said order shows that pending WP.No.26308 of 1998, filed questioning the suspension of the regular dealer, the respondent appointed the petitioner on temporary basis as fair price shop dealer. It is recited in the said order as under: “Based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Atmakur and keeping in view of the convenience of the cardholders and also keeping in view of writ petition pending in the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hydeabad, Sri R. Anil Kumar, S/o. R.K. Viswanath is hereby appointed as F.P. Shop dealer, Shop No.III, Atmakur on temporary basis. He will not have any right over the F.P. Shop dealership and he will be terminated at any time without giving prior notice.” Subsequently, in order to fill up the vacancy on regular basis, the respondent issued notice dated 15.11.2007 calling applications from ST (General) category of candidates for filling up the said vacancy. The petitioner questioned this notification by filing the present writ petition. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit in which it is inter alia averred that there is no need for him to issue notice to the petitioner because there is no such legal obligation on him before issuing notification for filling of the vacancy, since the petitioner is only the temporary dealer and his dealership is liable to be terminated at any time. He further averred that as per guideline No.7 contained in G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06.10.2003, Revenue Division will be taken as a unit for applying reservations. He indicated the total number of vacancies reserved for each of the four reserved categories, namely, SC, ST, BC, PHC in a table and mentioned that the 6% reservation for ST category works out to 55 shops in the division and so far, only 37 persons belonging to ST category have been appointed. He thus justified reservation of the Atmakur fair price shop No.3 for ST candidate. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner passed on to the Court a xerox copy of letter dated 18.12.2007 purported to have been addressed by the respondent to the District Collector, Anantapur and pointed out that the details mentioned therein are at variance with the details contained in the counter-affidavit inasmuch as in the said statement the number of shops under the caption ‘Target’ is shown as 54 and under ‘Achievement’ caption, the number is shown as 33 while in the statement contained in the counter-affidavit they are shown as 55 and 37 respectively. Though counter-affidavit was served on the petitioner on 21.01.2008, he did not file any reply affidavit controverting the allegations contained in it. The purported letter of the respondent passed on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not authenticated. Even assuming that the said copy is genuine and the figures contained therein are at variance with the figures contained in the counter-affidavit, the same does not have any affect on the outcome of this case. Assuming that the figures contained in the letter passed on by the learned counsel are correct, even then, as against the target of 54 shops to be reserved for ST candidates, only 33 were filled up so far with the ST candidates, still leaving a balance of 21 shops for being filled up with candidates belonging to ST category. The petitioner has not questioned the reservation policy. Admittedly, as the quota for ST candidates is not achieved, the respondent reserved the shop in question for the said candidates. The petitioner being a temporary dealer has no right to insist that either he is entitled to a prior notice before issuing notification for filling up the shop on permanent basis or that the fair price shop shall not be reserved for any category other than the O.C. category to which he belongs. The petitioner does not have any vested right in law. The writ petition is therefore wholly misconceived and the same is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.22302 of 2007 and WVMP.No.81 of 2008 are also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.03.2008 ES