THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26629 of 2010 DT.27.10.2010 Between: Manchala Krishna and another. … Petitioners And Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal Division, Dist.Warangal. … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.Alluri Raghu Rama Aurava Counsel for respondent: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 16.06.2010, of the respondent, whereby he rejected the petitioners’ representation for their continuance as dealers till the vacancies are filled-up on regular basis. I have heard Sri Alluri Raghu Rama Aurava, learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record. The petitioners were appointed as fair price shop dealers on 06.11.2007 of Aravapally Village and Sundanpally Village respectively of Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District, in pursuance of the notifications issued by the respondent in the year 2007. On appeals filed against the appointments of the petitioners and various others in the Warangal Division, the Joint Collector, Warangal has set aside all the appointments on the ground that the procedure followed by the respondent in making selections and appointments was contrary to the Government guidelines envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 06.10.2010. The revision petitions filed before the District Collector, Warangal were dismissed. The aggrieved parties filed writ petitions, which were dismissed confirming the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities. Writ Appeals filed against the said orders were also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners made representations to continue them. The respondent vide his proceedings, dated 16.06.2010, held that out 24 fair price shops, in respect of which, appointments were set aside, two shops were already being run with in-charge dealers and that the Tahsildar concerned shall make alternative arrangements for the balance shops by keeping the nearby fair price shop dealers as in- charge of the fair price shops. The petitioners questioned this proceeding on the ground that as their appointments were set aside only on procedural illegalities and irregularities committed by the appointing authority, they cannot be deprived of their right to continue as fair price shop dealers, till the vacancies are filled-up on permanent basis. Having carefully considered the plea raised by the petitioners and the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for them, I am of the opinion that the appointments of the petitioners having been set aside by the appellate authority which were confirmed in revision and also in the writ proceedings before this Court, they cannot claim any right to continue as fair price shop dealers. A fortiori, they cannot with any legitimacy plead that till permanent appointments are made, they should be continued through in-charge arrangements. The only right, which is available to the petitioners, is to apply afresh as and when notifications are issued, if they are eligible, and compete with others for fresh selection. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned proceedings of the respondent. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.33998 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 27.10.2010. VGB