HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.25004 of 2007, 26801 & 26802 of 2008 Date : 11.10.2011 Between : K. Suryanarayana & another. …..Petitioners And The District Manager, A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Chittoor & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.25004 of 2007, 26801 & 26802 of 2008 COMMON ORDER : As the petitioners in W.P.No.25004 of 2007 are the petitioners in W.P.Nos.26801 and 26802 of 2008, all the three writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal, I refer to the facts as arise in W.P.No.25004 of 2007. The petitioners were the fair price shop dealers for shop Nos.68 and 64 respectively, at Tirumala in Chittoor District. It is their case that during the implementation of master plan in Tirumala Hills, all the cardholders were evicted and they were rehabilitated in various places in Tirupathi town. It is the case of petitioners that most of the cardholders were accommodated at Tirupathi in and around fair price shop Nos.55, 58, 75 and 80. On the ground that supplies were discontinued without passing any order cancelling their authorization, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.25004 of 2007 and obtained interim directions to consider their claim for appointment as dealers on temporary basis. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the impugned order, dated 07.11.2007, is issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, in Proceedings Roc.M/2483/2006, holding that in the absence of any clear vacancy of fair price shop dealer in Tirupathi town, the petitioners are not entitled to seek for appointment. In the same order, it is observed that whenever fresh notification is issued for appointment of dealers in Tirupathi town, the petitioners can apply. When the respondents have issued notification to fill up the vacancies of fair price shop dealers for shop No.23 at Karnala street and shop No.41 at Manchala street of Tirupathi, writ petition Nos.26801 of 2008 and 26802 of 2008 were filed. In the said writ petitions, it is the case of petitioners that the respondents should not have notified the vacancies inviting applications from third parties, without considering their claim for appointment. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that during the pendency of these writ petitions, in view of the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioners were appointed as dealers on temporary basis for shop Nos.23 and 41 of Tirupathi. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as dealers several years back at Tirumala and they discharged their duties without any allegation, but as much as the cardholders are shifted to Tirupathi town, they are to be appointed as dealers on permanent basis, in the existing vacancies. The appointment of fair price shop dealers and disciplinary proceedings are presently governed by the A.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, which is framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is true that the petitioners were dealers in Tirumala town, but when the cardholders were shifted from that place and were accommodated in Tirupathi under rehabilitation scheme, in the absence of habitation by the cardholders itself, there cannot be any direction for appointment of petitioners in the vacant shops. Merely because the cardholders were shifted around fair price shop Nos.55, 58, 75 and 80 in Tirupathi town, no direction can be granted allowing the petitioners to act as authorized dealers for the said shops, as much as the said shops were held by other dealers, who are not before this Court. As per the procedure which is in vogue now, whenever vacancies are to be filled up on permanent basis, selections are to be made by conducting written test followed by oral interview, by issuing open notification. Therefore, while filling up the vacancies, the authorities can keep in mind the past services rendered by the petitioners as dealers in Tirumala town, but there cannot be any direction to appoint the petitioners as permanent dealers in any of the existing vacancies in Tirupathi. In view of the above, while I am not inclined to grant any positive direction for appointment of petitioners as dealers, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents that whenever the vacancies of dealers are notified in Tirupathi town for filling up on permanent basis, the claim of petitioners shall be considered keeping in mind the past services rendered by them as dealers in Tirumala. As it is stated that the petitioners were appointed as temporary dealers for the vacant shops, they may be continued till appropriate permanent arrangements are made. The writ petitions are disposed of, subject to the above directions. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th October 2011 ajr