HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.26657 of 2009 Date: July 8, 2010 Between: P. Radha, D/o. Narasimhaiah, Hindu, Aged about 38 years, Fair Price Shop Dealer, R/o.Mudigubba village and Mandal, Anantapur District … Petitioner And The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District, and two others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of second respondent in issuing Notification Rc.No.2014/2009/C, dated 01-12-2009, as illegal and arbitrary. The father of the petitioner was appointed as dealer of Fair Price Shop No.1 of Mudigubba village and Mandal and after his death, the petitioner was continuing as temporary dealer of the said shop. It is stated that thereafter the first respondent birfucated the said shop, created a new shop and allotted the same to the petitioner. While things stood thus, the impugned notification was issued inviting applications for grant of dealership for distribution of essential commodities under Andhra Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control Order) 2008. The main ground on which this writ petition is filed is that, earlier, dealership for the shop in question was reserved to candidates belonging to O.C. community and the impugned notification is issued reserving the said shop to candidates belonging to S.C. community and the same is illegal. Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents giving the details of number of shops and the percentage of reservation provided as per the guidelines framed in G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 18-12-2008. A statement showing the category-wise Fair Price shops is also enclosed to the counter affidavit. It is stated that total number of shops in Mudigubba Mandal are 47 and as per the aforesaid guidelines, 15 per cent of the shops are reserved to Scheduled Castes, i.e. 7 shops. It is further stated that existing shops are only 3 and there is a shortfall of 4 shops and so as to make good the shortfall, vacancies have been notified by the impugned notification as per the guidelines framed in the said G.O. Though it is the case of the petitioner that, earlier, the shop in question was reserved to candidates belonging to O.C. community, and hence the action of the respondents in reserving the said shop to S.C. candidates, by the impugned notification, is illegal, but, it is to be seen that as per the guidelines framed under G.O.Ms.No.52 dated 18-12-2008, to overcome the shortfall of the percentage of reservation, respondents have issued the impugned notification, notifying the vacancies by taking Revenue Division as a Unit. Merely because the shop in question was earlier reserved to O.C. candidates, it cannot be said that it should be reserved only to O.C. candidates, more so when respondents have taken steps to notify the vacancies in accordance with the guidelines framed under the aforesaid G.O. It is also to be noted that the petitioner was only appointed as dealer on temporary basis on the death of her father; as such she cannot, as a matter of right, claim dealership. Hence, no relief as sought can be granted. But, however, if the petitioner is continuing as temporary dealer for the shop in question as on today, she shall be continued as such till regular appointments are made. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) July 8, 2010 MRR