THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28080 of 2010 Dated 18th January, 2011 Between: G.Mahaboob Jan …Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Chittoor and another …Respondents Counsel for petitioner: Sri Ch.Janardhan Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Roc.A3/7749/10, dated13.10.2010, of respondent No.2, whereby he has notified the vacancy relating to Thamballapalli fair price shop. I have heard Sir Ch.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. The petitioner claims to be working as fair price shop dealer on temporary basis in respect of shop No.3 of Thamballapalli village from the year 2003. She has averred that initially the authorization was given up to 31.03.2005 and the same was being renewed from time to time and that the renewal last made is valid up to 31.03.2011. That respondent No.2 has issued a notification on 07.01.2006 for filling up the vacancy on permanent basis, that the petitioner filed an appeal, wherein she has contended that she has no objection for filling up the vacancy on permanent basis if preference is given to her and that recording the said statement, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous. By the impugned notification, respondent No.2 has invited applications from the physically handicapped persons for filling up the vacancy. Aggrieved by this action, the present writ petition is filed. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner’s authorization is valid till March, 2011, there is no justification for issuing the impugned notice in the absence of permanent vacancy. The petitioner has, however, failed to file the order renewing her authorization till 31.03.2011 as pleaded by her. Be that as it may, assuming that the petitioner’s authorization was renewed till the said date, on her own showing, her authorization was temporary in nature, which necessarily means that it is always permissible for the respondents to fill up the vacancy on permanent basis even during the subsistence of temporary authorization. Though the petitioner felt aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2 in reserving the vacancy for physically handicapped, she has not substantiated her plea by filing any material to show that making reservation to physically handicapped persons violates any of the legal provisions or executive instructions, including G.O.M.S.No.52, dated 18.12.2008, which contains the guidelines for making appointments. By working as a temporary dealer, the petitioner does not have any legally enforceable right to prevent the respondents from filling up the vacancy on permanent basis. As the petitioner failed to substantiate her plea that the impugned notification contravenes any of the existing provisions of law or executive instructions, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.35810 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th January, 2011 VGB/VJL