IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO.221 of 2010 AND BATCH DATED:12.7.2010 Between: A. Kantha Rao … Appellant And The Revenue Divisional Officer Kurnool, Kurnool District and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NOs.221, 249, 254, 259, 309, 310, 344, 347, 348 AND 349 OF 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) This batch of writ appeals arises out of the judgments disposing of the writ petitions of the fair price shop dealers appointed temporarily pending regular appointment. To appreciate the controversy in its correct perspective, it needs to be noticed that the basic order of temporary appointment in the lead case is quite similar to appointment orders passed in other writ petitions and one such order is reproduced hereunder; “Sri A. Kantha Rao, S/o. Ramaiah has submitted an application stating that he was appointed as F.P. Shop dealer for VI th Ward of Kallur village, Kurnool Urban F.P. Shop No.129 on Temporary Basis for a specific period of (3) months in the reference Ist read above and the allowed period is being lapsed by 17.4.2001. He requested the Revenue Divisional Officer for issue of continuation orders for running the F.P. Shop till the vacancy is made permanent in place of Smt. A. Umadevi, W/o. Muniswamy earlier F.P. Shop dealer who was kept under suspension. In view of the above, the F.P. Shop dealership of Sri A. Kantha Rao is hereby extended for doing F.P. Shop business till the vacancy is made on permanent. The F.P. Shop dealer is informed that he will be removed at any time without prior notice. The temporary appointment does not derive any right at the time of F.P. Shop vacancy filled up on permanent basis.” After having allowed the appellants to work for a considerable period, the respondents initiated process for permanent appointment of the dealers and issued the notices inviting applications from the eligible persons vide different notifications which have been sought to be quashed with a consequential relief to allow them to continue treating them to be permanent dealers, but could not succeed in the writ petitions. Hence, these writ appeals. A bare perusal of the appointment order makes it manifestly clear that the petitioners’ appointment has to be in force until regular appointment. Thus, only right that flows to them from the order is to continue till regular appointment is made, which relief has been granted to them by the Writ Court of course with liberty to the respondents to go ahead with the process of selection. We find no fault with the impugned orders of the Writ Court. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Before parting with, let us place on record that the appellants’ contention about pick and choose mode and method stands responded to by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Department with a statement that all such temporary dealers shall be replaced by regular appointments and process on that count has already commenced excepting in respect of shop No.30 which could not take off because of an interim direction to the contrary by the Writ Court in the writ petition. The statement should satisfy the writ appellants. Regarding the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that dismissal of these writ appeals should not work as impediment for them to prosecute their causes against the selections, suffice it to say that our order is limited to the extent of basic notification only and does not deal with any final selection. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 12-7-2010 B. Narsinga Rao