1 APHC010488142021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 29418/2021 Between: Vajrapu Amna ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2 The Court made the following: 1. Challenging the proceedings of the 3rd respondent issued vide Rc.No.852/2018/G, dated 28.04.2021, appointing the 6th respondent as Fair Price Shop dealer to the newly created Fair Price Shop.No.0, situated at Phool Baugh Colony-4, Vizianagaram Town and Mandal, Vizainagaram, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the notification dated 19.05.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent for appointment of a Fair Price Shop dealer to the newly created Fair Price Shop.No.0, situated at Phool Baugh Colony-4, Vizianagaram Town and Mandal, Vizainagaram on regular basis, nearly 10 candidates including the petitioner applied for the said post and out of 10 candidates, 7 candidates appeared for the written test conducted on 03.06.2018. Based on the marks secured by the candidates, 7 candidates were called for the interview on 12.06.2018, the petitioner was one among them. 3. While the matter stood thus, questioning the notification issued by the 3rd respondent for appointment of Fair Price Shop dealer for the subject shop, W.P.No.18177 of 2018 was filed, on the ground that notification was issued without following the rule of reservation and roaster points. The said writ petition was disposed on 23.12.2019 directing the respondents to follow roaster point as per the orders passed dated 04.09.2015 in W.P.No.59 of 2015 and then proceed for selection of fair price shop dealers to various shops. However, after conducting interviews and basing on the performance 3 in the written examination and in the interview, the 3rd respondent appointed the 6th respondent as Fair Price Shop dealer for the subject shop, vide his proceedings in Rc.No.852/2018/G, dated 28.04.2021. Challenging the said proceedings, the present writ petition came to be filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, placed on record a copy of the instructions issued by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, vide his letter in Rc.No.1134/2025/A1, dated 18.11.2025, wherein it is stated that the notification was issued for appointment of certain Fair Price Shop and dealers for the shops, which are bifurcated recently in Vizianagaram Division, vide Rc.No.852/2018/G/D, dated 28.04.201, and accordingly a written examination was conducted and merit list was also announced, where the 6th respondent got highest marks rather than the petitioner, who stood at 10th place, but, the 6th respondent refused her appointment and submitted a letter to the 3rd respondent to that effect. 6. In view of the fact that the 6th respondent has not joined as fair price shop dealer, pursuant to the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 28.04.20211, this court is of the opinion that no further cause survives in the writ petition. 4 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed, giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the subsequent notification, if any, issued by the respondents in respect of subject shop no costs. 8. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. _____________ V. SUJATHA, J Date: 19.11.2025 KSN/CMK