IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17350 of 2007 Between: Smt.Sirra Swapna W/o.Ramesh R/o.Muthyampet village, Malyal Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Collector ( Civil Supplies), Karimnagar District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.VENKATA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following Order: ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner questions notification dated 17.07.2007, whereby the vacancy in respect of fair price shop of Malyal Mandal is notified. The short ground on which this notification is assailed in this writ petition is that on 04.04.2007, respondent No.2 notified the vacancy in respect of the same shop by reserving the same for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste (SC) category. The petitioner pleaded that when a notification was already issued in respect of the same shop, a second notification could not have been issued. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is, inter alia, stated that subsequent to the issuance of notification dated 04.04.2007, wherein seven (7) vacancies were notified, it was realized that 15% reservation for SCs was already filled and therefore, a fresh notification was issued on 17.07.2007 notifying the vacancy in respect of the shop in question in favour of BC category. At the hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies placed before me a notice said to have been placed in the notice board showing that the interview in respect of Malyal Mandal fair price shop dealership is cancelled as proper publicity was not given in respect of the said shop. In my considered view, respondent No.2 committed serious procedural illegality in issuing impugned notification without cancelling the previous notification. When a notification inviting applications is published following the prescribed procedure, even for cancellation of the notification so issued, the same procedure is required to be followed. Respondent No.2, by placing the notice of cancellation in the notice board, does not satisfy the requirement of cancellation of previous notification. Moreover a perusal of the notice placed before me shows that what was cancelled therein was the interview, but not the notification dated 04.04.2007. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned notification dated 17.07.2007 is set aside. Liberty, however, is given to respondent No.2 to follow proper procedure if he intends to cancel notification dated 04.04.2007 and issue a fresh notification by following the procedure according to law. _________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 21st July, 2009 GHN