IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11026 of 2010 BETWEEN K. Eswaraiah. ... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector, Anantapur and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: ORDER: Petitioner is a temporary fair price shop dealer of Shop No.1 of Sanapa Village, Atmakur Mandal, Anantapur District. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the notification dated 25.03.2010 issued by the respondents inviting applications to fill up the vacancies on permanent basis in respect of Shop No.1. The appointment and disciplinary proceedings are governed by the Andhra Pradesh State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2. The aforesaid notification is issued as per the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 06.10.2003. The impugned notification is questioned mainly on the ground that though there is shortfall as against the reservation for backward class, the impugned notification is issued reserving the said shop for PHC – General. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the guidelines issued in the aforesaid GO, the respondents have not taken any steps for appointing the dealer pursuant to the notification. 3. As per guidelines issued by the Government, 25% was reserved for BC communities and 3% for Physically Handicapped (PHC) and the said reservations have to be effected having regard to the total number of shops in the Revenue division. It is not in dispute that the in the revenue division of Atmakur Mandal, there are total 1019 shops and so far as BC’s are concerned, to the extent of 25%, 255 shops are to be allotted to backward class communities, out of which 252 shops are held by the persons belonging to backward community. So far as PHC’s are concerned, 3% of total number of shops works out to 31 and only 18 shops are held by physically handicapped and as per reservation i.e. 3% for PHC category, there are yet 13 vacancies available to be filled in. In that view of the matter, there is a marginal shortfall to represent 25% reservation provided to BC’s but there is a huge shortfall so far as PHC category is concerned. Therefore, to make good the deficiency in the reservations to PHC category, the respondents have issued the impugned notification by reserving the said shop for PHC General. Merely because the petitioner is holding temporary dealership and belonging to backward class, the same is no ground to question the impugned notification, as much as the same is in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government in the aforesaid GO. The further ground that the respondents have not filled up the vacancy is also no ground to invalidate the impugned notification. However, the fact remains that the petitioner is not eligible to be considered as per the notification issued. 4. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned notification, which warrants interference in this writ petition filed under 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J October 5, 2010 DSK