Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11445
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Cheemalapati, J
S SHABANA KHANAM – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 31096/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Papudippu Sashidar Reddy
For the Respondents: GP for Civil Supplies
A temporary appointee cannot legally challenge a notification to fill a vacancy on a permanent basis if the terms of their appointment clearly specified the temporary nature of the arrangement until a regular appointment is made.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged a notification issued by the respondent authorities for the appointment of a permanent Fair Price Shop dealer, citing Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, who had been serving as a temporary dealer since 2006, contended that the notification was arbitrary and illegal as it was issued without first cancelling her existing temporary authorization. The primary issue was whether a temporary dealer possesses a legal right to challenge a notification for the appointment of a permanent dealer. The court reasoned that since the appointment order explicitly stated the temporary arrangement was only until the vacancy was filled on a regular basis, the petitioner has no legal right to obstruct the process of regular recruitment. “The petitioner is at liberty to make an application for appointment of permanent dealer pursuant to notification vide Roc Ref.No.B/1083/RCT/2024 dated 23.12.2024. Till finalization of the notification, the petitioner shall continue as the fair price shop dealer.”
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Ref.No.B/1083/RCT/2024, dated 23.12.2024 in issued by Respondent No.4 with respect to fair price shop no. 1183050 in Serial no. 12 is arbitrary, illegal arbitrary, self-contrary, capricious, irrational, illegal and contrary to the well- established legal principles and principles of natural justice apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14,19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to apply in the notification issued vide proceedings Ref.No.B/1083/RCT/2024, dated 23.12.2024 in view of the interim order dated 18.12.2024 in W.P No 29814 of 2024 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to direct the Respondents to continue the petitioner as the Fair Price Shop dealer by suspending the proceedings Ref.No.B/1083/RCT/2024, dated 23.12.2024 Respondent No.4 with respect to fair price shop no. 1183050 in Serial no. 12 by Respondent no 4, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Impugning the notification vide Ref.No.B/1083/RCT/2024 dated 23.12.2024 inviting applications for appointment of Fair Price Shop dealer for Shop No.1183050, Kothapalli Village, Rayachoti Mandal, Annamayya District, the present writ petition is filed.
Heard Sri Shaik Sulthan, learned counsel representing Sri P.Sashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Appasani Vineeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, contended that the petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer for the subject shop on temporary basis on 25.05.2006 and has been discharging her duties since then. While so, without cancelling the petitioner’s authorization, the 4th respondent issued the impugned notification dated 23.12.2024 inviting applications for appointment of permanent dealership. He further submitted that if such notification is allowed and any member is appointed in place of the petitioner, it would not only affect the rights of the petitioner but her livelihood. He further contended that this Court on 28.12.2024 granted interim order permitting the petitioner to apply pursuant to the notification and to attend written test and interview. Further, pending disposal of the writ petition, stayed the allotment of the fair price shop of the petitioner to any third party and the petitioner was permitted to continue as a fair price shop dealer. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders.
On the other hand, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that the petitioner cannot question the notification as she is a temporary dealer and the respondents have authority to appoint a permanent dealer. If at all the petitioner has an intention to participate in the notification, she can as well participate but cannot question the notification before this Court, as such, prayed to dismiss the writ petition being meritless.
Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary fair price sh
