IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25413 of 2007 Between: P.Padmavathi W/o.P.Ram Mohan Reddy R/o.8-346, K.Kothapali Village, Kanekal Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in issuing notification in Rc.No.2152/2007/N, dated 15-11-2007, for appointment of permanent dealer of K.Kothapalli Fair Price Shop, Kanekal Mandal, Anantapur, by reserving the same for BC (Women) Category, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. At the interlocutory stage, the main Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer of K.Kothapalli Village on temporary basis on 28- 04-2005. By notification dated 15-11-2007, the respondent notified the said shop for filling up the vacancy on permanent basis by reserving the same for BC (Women) Category. The petitioner questioned this notification on the sole ground that the said shop was earlier earmarked for OC category, and by reserving the same for a BC category person, the petitioner is denied the opportunity of consideration for appointment on permanent basis. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, the action of reserving the vacancy for BC (women) category is sought to be justified on the ground that he is required to follow the rule of reservation. It is also averred in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner, being a temporary dealer, has no legal right to insist that she be appointed on permanent basis. At the end of the counter-affidavit, the respondent gave details in a table as to the number of total shops reserved for various social groups falling under the reserved category, and it is shown that as against eleven shops reserved for BC category, all the eleven dealers are working. With reference to this table, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that since, on the respondent’s own showing, all the reserved category vacancies for BC were filled up with candidates belonging to the said category, there is no justification in reserving the vacancy of the fair price shop in question for a candidate belonging to the BC (women) category. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader furnished another table and submitted that the table shown in the counter-affidavit relates to the total number of shops of Kanekal Mandal, and the table, he had furnished at the hearing, relates to the details of reservation at the Revenue Division level, which shall be taken as unit for the purpose of implementing reservation policy. According to this table, as against 155 shops reserved for B.C. category, 142 shops were filled up with candidates belonging to the said category, and 13 vacancies remain to be filled up with the candidates of the said category. With these details given by the respondent, I am satisfied that his action, in reserving the fair price shop in question for BC (women) category, does not call for interference by this Court. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.33124 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 18th April, 2008 lur