THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6611 OF 2010 DATED:23.03.2010 Between: E.Padmavathi .. Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6611 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner’s husband E.Srinivas was dealer of Fair Price Shop (FPS) No.17, Ashok Nagar, Bellampalli, Adilabad District. He died on 21.09.2006. Therefore, the petitioner herein submitted an application to the Tahsildar, Bellampalli, requesting for appointment as FPS dealer. By letter dated 17.09.2009, the Tahsildar sent recommendation. Accepting the proposal by proceedings dated 08.11.2009, the Revenue Divisional Officer – the second respondent herein; appointed the petitioner as dealer of FPS No.17, Ashok Nagar, Bellampalli, on ‘temporary basis till regular dealer is appointed’. About five months thereafter, the second respondent herein issued notification dated 09.03.2010 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment of dealers for as many as 60 FPSs in Mancherial Revenue Division including the said FPS No.17. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed the instant Writ Petition. Counsel for the petitioner raised two submissions. Firstly, when the petitioner has been appointed as FPS dealer after death of her husband, there is no necessity for appointment of regular dealer. Secondly, the reservation provided in the impugned notification is contrary to the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.52, dated 18.12.2008. Insofar as, first submission is concerned, a perusal of the order dated 08.11.2009 itself would show that the petitioner was appointed as temporary dealer till regular dealer is appointed and therefore she cannot get any enforceable right for appointment as regular FPS dealer. Insofar as reservation is concerned, undisputedly, entire revenue division is a unit and the Government Order provides for reservation with reference to revenue unit. No details are placed before this Court to appreciate the contention that there is a contravention of the reservation policy in G.O.Ms.No.52. Further, the petitioner can as well wait and prefer an appeal if he is aggrieved by regular appointment. The Writ Petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 23.03.2010 KH