ORDER
C.V. Ramulu, J.
1. This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in taking steps to renotify the petitioner’s fair price Shop No. 20 of 11th Ward, Guntakal, Ananthapur District, on the strength of the Orders of the 1st respondent in D.Dis. No.K4/ATP/601/2004, dated 3-2-2006 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time and consequently to set aside the Orders of the 1st respondent dated 3-2-2006.
2. It appears that in pursuance of a notification issued by the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapur dated 29-8-1998 to fill up the vacancy of F.P. Shop No. 20 of 1lth Ward, Guntakal on permanent basis, petitioner along with others applied for the same. Respondent No. 3, after considering the respective merits of the candidates, appointed the petitioner as fair price shop dealer on 22-9-1998 against F.P. Shop No. 20 of 1lth Ward, Guntakal. Aggrieved by the said Order of appointment, 4th respondent herein filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The appellate authority while admitting the appeal, refused to grant stay and finally the appeal itself was dismissed by an Order dated 13-4-1999. Challenging the same, the 4th respondent filed Writ Petition No. 13649 of 1999, which was disposed of with a direction to approach the revisional authority. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 filed a revision before the 1st respondent, who, according to the petitioner, without issuing any notice, cancelled her appointment and directed the 3rd respondent to renotify the vacancy of F.P. Shop No. 20 of 1lth Ward, Guntakal. While disposing of the revision on 25-10-2003, the order of appointment of the petitioner as well as the order of the appellate authority were set aside. Assailing the said Order of the 1st respondent, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 7720 of 2004, which was disposed of by this Court on 11-7-2005 setting aside the Order of the 1st respondent dated 25-10-2003 and remanding the matter to the 1st respondent for de novo enquiry. In pursuance of the said Order of this Court, a report was called for with regard to the status of the 4th respondent herein from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntakal, who, submitted his report on 1-10-2005. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntakal also submitted another report on 31-12-2005 with regard to the status of the petitioner herein. Basing on the said reports, the 1st respondent dismissed the revision holding that the 4th respondent herein is a close relative of a Government employee working in Revenue Department and also not resident of 11th Ward of Guntakal Town where the fair price shop is located and the petitioner herein is also not a resident of 1lth Ward of Guntakal and as such, set aside the Orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer-3rd respondent and the Joint Collector-2nd respondent and directed to renotify the vacancy by following the rule of reservation. Assailing the said Order, the present writ petition is filed.
3. While admitting the writ petition, after passing a detailed interim Order on 9-3-2006 dismissing W.P.M.P. No. 5643 of 2006, which was filed seeking to suspend the impugned Order, this Court made it clear that any appointment made to the fair price shop No. 20, Ward No. 11 of Guntakal Town shall be subject to result of the writ petition.
4. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 1 denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is admitted as to issuance of appointment order in favour of the petitioner, dismissing of appeal of the 4th respondent by the 2nd respondent, allowing of revision by the 1st respondent in the first instance, filing of earlier writ petition in W.P. No. 7720 of 2004, remanding the matter to the 1st respondent and also passing of the impugned order. Further, before passing the impugned Order, status reports were called for from the Mandal Revenue Officer, who reported that the petitioner is married to one Chandrasekhar Babu and is not a resident of 1lth Ward in which the fair price shop is located. Respondent No. 1 also afforded opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and then passed the impugned Order setting aside the Orders of respondents 2 and 3 and directing the 3rd respondent to renotify the vacancy. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the 1st respondent in passing the impugned Order.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The only ground on which the Order of 3rd respondent appointing the petitioner as fair price shop dealer, which was confirmed by the 2nd respondent, was set aside by the 1st respondent is that the petitioner is not a resident of 1lth Ward of Guntakal Town; therefore, her case ought not to have been considered by the 3rd respondent for appointment as fair price shop dealer of Shop No. 20 of 11th Ward, Guntakal.
7. When questioned, learned Government Pleader was not able to show how the petitioner became a non-local for being considered for appointment against a fair price shop, which is located within one and the same Town where she is residing. May be, she got married and residing in a different Ward, but that does not mean that the petitioner is not entitled for being appointed as fair price shop dealer. In the counter-affidavit, it is merely stated that the guidelines under Clause 9(1) of the Annexure to G.O. Ms. No. 198, dated 5-2-1996 stipulate that with regard to appointment of fair price shop dealers, preference shall be given to a resident of the revenue village or hamlet in which the shop is to be located or the Ward in a Municipality where the fair price shop is to be located. But, absolutely, there is no embargo for consideration of a person of one Ward of a Town for being appointed as a fair price shop dealer of another Ward of the same Town. Though the petitioner got married, even according to the counter, she is residing at Dr. No. 22-149 of Guntakal Town. Therefore, the Order passed by the 1st respondent setting aside the Orders of respondents 2 and 3 and directing to renotify the vacancy by following rule of reservation is liable to be set aside.
8. Further, it appears that in view of the interim Orders passed by this Court on 9-3-2006, though the vacancy was notified in the meanwhile, further process was stopped and no appointment was made to F.P. Shop No. 20, Ward No. 11 of Guntakal Town, as per the instructions received by the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies from the Office of the District Collector, Anantapur on 20-12-2006.
9. For all the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned Order of the 1st respondent dated 3-2-2006 insofar as setting aside the Orders of respondents 2 and 3 is concerned, is quashed. No order as to costs.