THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.5458, 5481, 5492, 5500, 5525 and 5534 of 2010 Dated:10.03.2010 Between: S.Jaya Prasad Reddy, And others. …Petitioners and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.5458, 5481, 5492, 5500, 5525 and 5534 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: This group of six cases are being disposed of by this common order as a similar point is raised in the cases. Whether a person who is appointed as a Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealer on temporary basis until further orders can seek a direction to the competent authority not to take up regular selection process till the subsistence of temporary authorization given to such FPS dealer? The facts and background may be noticed by referring to W.P.No.5481 of 2010. The petitioner made an application to the Tahsildar, Bethamcherla, seeking appointment as FPS dealer on temporary basis for shop No.21, Gutupalli Village. Vacancy occurred due to resignation of a regular dealer. Tahsildar submitted report on 15.12.2007. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, by proceedings dated 17.01.2008, appointed the petitioner as FPS dealer on temporary basis until further orders. About two years thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued selection notification dated 22.02.2010 inviting applications from eligible candidates for being appointed as regular FPS dealer. The same is assailed in the Writ Petition. In W.P.Nos.5492, 5534 and 5500 of 2010 also the same notification of the Revenue Divisional Officer is impugned by the temporary dealers. In W.P.Nos.5458 and 5525 of 2010 the factual background is the same, but the temporary appointment was made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, and the notification impugned dated 22.02.2010 is issued by him. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the authorization given to the petitioners in Form – II under Clause 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008, the authorization is valid for the period specified therein, and therefore, till the expiry of temporary authorization, the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot appoint permanent dealer. Insofar as the temporary appointments made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, are concerned, the appointments were made specifically making it clear that the appointments are on temporary basis until further orders. Therefore, the submission cannot be countenanced. Clause 2 requires specific mention of validity period. But, curiously the authorization given to the petitioners is silent on this aspect although the printed form contains the validity period as from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2009. In the absence of any specific mention in the authorization regarding validity period one should construe the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer appointing the petitioners as temporary dealers. As the same is made until further orders the petitioners cannot claim any right. Further, a perusal of the appointment orders would reveal that the petitioners themselves requested for being appointed on temporary basis. Having requested so, they cannot turn around and claim dealership till the expiry of the period. The Writ Petitions are misconceived, and the same are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 10.03.2010 vs