THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.22529 of 2009 DATED: 22.04.2010 Between: G. Yadaiah .. Petitioner And The Sub Collector/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad, R. R. District and another. .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioner states that his father late G. Ramchandraiah was the authorized dealer of fair price shop No.31 of Pedda Umenthal Village, Pudur Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. He died in the month of December 2008, while his authorization was in subsistence, which is valid till 31.03.2010. The petitioner further states that, after the death of his father, he submitted an application to the 2nd respondent- Tahsildar, Pudur Mandal, on 30.04.2009, requesting to appoint him as dealer of the said fair price shop No.31, and it is his case that while the said application is pending consideration, the 1st respondent- Sub Collector, Vikarabad, has issued the impugned notification dated 03.10.2009, inviting applications from eligible OC (Women) candidates, for appointment to the post of dealer of the subject shop. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and it is his grievance that, reservation for women shall be fixed at 30% only and, in fact, for filling up of the vacancies of fair price shop dealers, there is no provision to reserve the post especially to O.C. (Women) candidates. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit admitting the death of the father of the petitioner, who was dealer of the subject fair price shop and submission of application by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent, seeking appointment to the said post. It is, however, stated that the proposal submitted by the 2nd respondent, on the application of the petitioner, was rejected on 28.09.2009 as per the norms in Annexure XIV appended to G.O.Ms.No.52 Consumer Affairs and Civil Supplies (CS-I) Department dated 18.12.2008, as the dealership is not transferable, and moreover there is no provision to provide appointment as dealer of fair price shop on compassionate grounds. So far as calling for applications only from OC (Women) candidates under the impugned notification is concerned, it is submitted that the same was done as per the norms and conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 18.12.2008 and the appointing authority shall follow the rule of reservation by treating the whole revenue division as a unit. In the unit of Vikarabad Division, there are 371 fair price shops and 30% thereof, to be reserved for women, comes to 112, but however, at present only 93 women fair price shops dealers are there in the unit and thus there is a shortfall of 19 women dealers. Therefore, the subject post was sought to be filled up with OC (Women) candidate and accordingly notification was issued as per the rules in force. In view of the aforesaid averments made in the counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent, I am of the considered opinion that no fault can be found with the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned notification and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the impugned notification, the mother of the petitioner has also applied for the subject post and the petitioner apprehends that, in view of his filing the present writ petition, the respondents may reject his mother’s candidature. In the circumstances, if the mother of the petitioner has applied for the subject post, the respondents may consider her case for appointment, if she is otherwise eligible as per law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observation. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 22nd April, 2010 IBL