THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16304 of 2007 Dated 16th June, 2010 Between: Padala Ramana. …Petitioner And The Collector (Civil Supplies), Visakhapatnam and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri B. Devanand Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri K. Ramakoteswara Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner questioned the issue of notification by respondent No.2 for filling up of vacancy of fair price shop dealer on permanent basis in respect of Egalavanipalem Village. The petitioner, who is a retail kerosene dealer distributing kerosene to various villages including the above mentioned Egalavanipalem Village, felt aggrieved by the said notification on the ground that while his application for conversion of retail kerosene dealership into fair price shop in pursuance of a policy decision of the Government was pending, respondent No.2 ought not to have issued the impugned notification. At the hearing, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed before this Court G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 30.08.2007, whereby guideline No.9 contained in G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06.10.2004 governing the appointment of fair price shop dealers was altered by inserting the following clause: “(iv) Preference shall be given to the Hawkers/NRs having license under the APPP (L&RS) Rules, 1980 for selection and apointment as F.P. Shop Dealer, while filling up the existing of new F.P. shop vacancy. All requisite qualifications and guidelines issued by Govt. from time to time shall be applicable to those Hawkers/NRs while converting into F.P. shop dealer subject to fullfilling the conditions if appointment of F.P. shop dealers by the NR/Hawkers who are otherwise eligible for appointment. ” The learned Government Pleader placing reliance on the above amendment submitted that while the petitioner cannot claim right of appointment in exclusion of others, he is entitled to preference as envisaged in the above reproduced guideline. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this position. In view of the above, the petitioner can be permitted to apply for appointment as fair price shop dealer in pursuance of the notification issued by respondent No.2. As time for making such application has already expired, he is given two weeks’ time from today for making such application. If the petitioner files such application within the stipulated time, respondent No.2 shall receive the same and consider along with other applications. While so considering, respondent No.2 shall keep in view G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 30.08.2007 and finalize the selections therewith. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 31.07.2007 in W.P.M.P.No.20736 of 2007 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.20736 of 2007 filed by the petitioner and W.V.M.P. (SR)No.123055 of 2007 filed by respondent No.4 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th June, 2010 GHN 18903 of 2007 At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner a dwacra group was appointed as a temporary fair price shop dealer pending filling up of permanent vacancy. By the impugned notification, respondent No.2 sought to fill up the said vacancy. Respondent No.1 in reserving the vacancy to the candidates belonging to schedule tribe. In my opinion, the petitioner has no vested right to insist that. The vacancy should be earmarked to a general category to enable the petitioner to claim preference. The petitioner fails to point out that in reserving the vacancy for candidates belonging to schedule tribes, the respondents have violated any of the statutory provisions or administrative guidelines. Providing reservation to the underprivileged candidates such as scheduled castes and scheduled tribes is an avowed object of the welfare state. Therefore, no illegality or arbitrariness is