IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9909 of 2004 Between: B.Chittamma @ Ramanamma, W/o.Bakkanna R/o.Konetemma Palli Village, Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional officer, Kurnool. 2 The M.R.O., Nandikotkur Mandal,Kurnool Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction or particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned Notification Rc.B.No.492/2004, dt.31-05-2004 calling for the applications to fill up the post of Fair price shop Dealer for shop No.33 of Konetemma palli Village, Nandikotkur Mandal, Kurnool District even though petitioner is working as Fair price shop dealer to the said shop and petitioner licence is subsisting and valid upto 31-03-2005, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the above stated impugned Notification of the 1st respondent with a further direction to the respondent to continue the petitioner as Fair price shop Dealer and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who was appointed as a Fair Price Shop Dealer on temporary basis, assailing the action of the first respondent in proceeding with the regular appointment of a Fair Price Shop Dealer. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a poor lady and belongs to the scheduled caste. As she was given a licence to run the Fair Price Shop on temporary basis, she may be allowed as Fair Price Shop Dealer till the completion of the licence period. Hence, sought for a direction to the respondents not to proceed with the regular selections for appointment of a permanent Fair Price Shop Dealer. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 4. The petitioner has no vested right to stop the permanent arrangements to be made by the first respondent. The very appointment of the petitioner clearly shows that it is only a temporary arrangement and the petitioner does not derive any right at the time of filling up of the vacancy of the Fair Price Shop Dealer on permanent basis. It also shows that the authorisation of the petitioner may be terminated at any time without prior notice. 5. Under the above circumstances, there is no merit warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 18th June, 2004 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //True Copy// SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Revenue Divisional officer, Kurnool. 2 The M.R.O., Nandikotkur Mandal,Kurnool Dist. 3 Two CCs to G.P. for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 4. Two CDs.