IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10731 of 2008 Between: Jyoti Subba Rao, S/o late Venkata Subbaiah R/o Chenna Varappadu (V) Sangam(M) Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of AP., rep by its Secrtary, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Nellore District. 3 The Thashidar, Sangam (M), Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.C.VANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in seeking to fill up the vacancy of fair price shop dealer of Chennavarappadu Village, Sangam Mandal, Nellore District on permanent basis, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner’s father was a fair price shop dealer during his life time and after his death, the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer on temporary basis. On 01.05.2008, respondent No.2 issued notification, by which the said vacancy is sought to be filled up. The petitioner assailed this notification on the ground that being the son of the deceased fair price shop dealer, he is entitled to be appointed in place of his father. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Circular, dated 29.06.2005 issued by the Director of Civil Supplies in support of the petitioner’s contention. I have carefully gone through the said Circular. By the said Circular, the Director of Civil Supplies merely called for the opinion of the District Collectors regarding the feasibility to amend G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 06.10.2003 providing for appointment of family members of the deceased fair price shop dealer. In my considered view, the said Circular does not vest any right in the petitioner for appointment, unless the Government takes a policy decision in this regard. As of now, no such decision is taken by the Government and the petitioner has no right as at present to claim appointment as of hereditary right. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, W.P.M.P.No.14017 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated:14.05.2008. sj