IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 524 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/04/2008 in WP NO : 19227 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: S. Ratna Durga, W/o. Late S. Vivekananda, No. 39, Peddaesrukapadu, Gudivada, Krishna District. R/o. Peddaesrukapadu , Krishna District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Joint Collector, Krishna District, at Machilipatnam. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, Krishna District. 3 The Tahsildar, Gudivada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.CH.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per LNR, J) The appellant is a member of self-help group. Fair Price Shop No.39 of Gudivada fell vacant some time in 2003. The group was kept in-charge of that shop and that the respondents have taken steps to appoint a fair price shop dealer for that shop on regular basis. The roster maintained by the respondents for the revenue division discloses that the shop is earmarked for Scheduled Tribe candidates. Accordingly, they issued a notification dated 31.08.2007, inviting applications from the suitable candidates for that shop. The appellant filed W.P.No.19227 of 2007, challenging the said notification. An interim order was granted on 1.09.2007. The respondents filed an application to vacate the interim order. The learned single Judge passed an order on 18.04.2008, vacating the interim order. Hence, this Writ Appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. It may be true that the appellant made a representation to the respondents for appointing her as a fair price shop dealer on regular basis. Under the present dispensation, every shop has to be filled only by inviting applications from the eligible candidates and appointment by nomination is not permissible. Admittedly, the appellant does not fit into the category, for which, the fair price shop is notified. The mere fact that the appellant or the group has been functioning as in-charge from the past several years, by itself cannot be a factor to interdict the process initiated by the respondents. We find no merit in the Writ Appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 21st MAY, 2008. _______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Kvni/Ko