Case Background
This case arose from recruitment of licence holders for ration shops under the Bihar Targeted P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2016 in Aurangabad district.
Advertisement No. 1 of 2017 invited applications for grant of PDS licences. The petitioners, along with other candidates, applied under this advertisement.
After the selection process, the petitioners were provisionally selected. Petitioners 1 to 4 were placed in Slot Nos. 1 to 4. Petitioners 5 and 6 were selected under reserved and handicapped categories respectively.
At the stage when the licensing authority was to issue licences, some unsuccessful candidates raised grievances about the selection process. In response, the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya, by order dated 11.03.2019, constituted a three-member inquiry committee to examine these complaints.
Even before various writ petitions came up before different Benches of the Patna High Court, this committee had already started looking into complaints about the selection process.
The three-member committee submitted its report on 08.07.2019. The report pointed out several inconsistencies in the selection process.
Based on this report, the Food and Civil Supply Department of the Government of Bihar decided to cancel the entire final selection list of proposed licensees for Aurangabad district. It was also decided to start a fresh selection process for PDS dealers in the district.
Consequently, Advertisement No. 1 of 2019-20 was issued and a new process for selection of suitable candidates for PDS shop licences was initiated.
The petitioners, who had been selected under the 2017 advertisement but had not been issued licences, challenged this cancellation decision and the subsequent fresh selection process.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The writ petition was filed mainly to set aside the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. By that order, the Commissioner cancelled the final selection list of proposed PDS licensees for Aurangabad district on the basis of the ex parte inquiry report of the three-member committee.
The petitioners also sought to quash the inquiry report itself, as well as the direction of the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, to initiate a fresh selection process for PDS dealers in Aurangabad.
Before the Division Bench, senior counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State were heard.
The Court first summarised how the dispute had developed. It noted that the 2017 advertisement was issued under the Bihar Targeted P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2016, and that the petitioners had been provisionally and finally selected. It was only at the stage of issuance of licences that the Divisional Commissioner ordered an inquiry into grievances of unsuccessful candidates.
The three-member inquiry committee looked into the complaints and submitted its report on 08.07.2019. On the basis of this report, the Government decided to annul the entire selection and start afresh, which led to Advertisement No. 1 of 2019-20.
The Court recorded that many writ petitions had been filed earlier by various aspirants. In some of those cases, when Benches were informed that a committee had already been constituted, the Court had directed the petitioners to appear before the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. The Commissioner was asked to have the complaints examined by a committee and take a decision in accordance with law.
In the present case, this background was important because the petitioners argued that they, as successful candidates, had been unfairly affected by a general cancellation based on an ex parte report.
To support their stand, the petitioners relied on an earlier order dated 25.03.2021 passed by a Single Judge in CWJC No. 21657 of 2019. In that decision, the Court had examined the role of the same three-member committee.
According to the Single Judge’s order, the committee was constituted only to consider general grievances of those applicants who had not succeeded in the selection process. The committee did not have information about the petitioners in that earlier case, who had already been selected and had been asked to deposit the required amount through challan.
Because of this, the Single Judge held that the general findings of the three-member committee could not automatically be applied to successful candidates whose individual cases had not been examined.
The Single Judge had further observed that the entire selection process could not be annulled “lock, stock and barrel” without giving an opportunity of hearing to such successful candidates.
On this reasoning, in CWJC No. 21657 of 2019, the Court directed the licensing authority to hand over the licence to that petitioner, while leaving it open to consider any complaint against him afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing.
In the present writ petition, counsel for the petitioners also informed the Division Bench about developments after that Single Judge order. The petitioners in that earlier case had represented before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). Their application stood rejected, and an appeal against that rejection order was pending before the appellate authority, namely the Collector of the district.
On the other hand, the State’s counsel drew the Division Bench’s attention to another decision of the same Single Judge Bench. In that similar matter, instead of ordering immediate grant of licence, the Court had directed the three-member inquiry committee to consider the individual cases of the petitioners and decide the matter within a fixed time.
The Division Bench took note of these different approaches and also of the fact that “lot of developments have taken place.” It emphasised that the PDS selection process is primarily for the benefit of consumers, and that the Commissioner’s decision to cancel the earlier selection arose from complaints that the process had not been conducted fairly and impartially.
Given this background, and considering that a fresh selection process pursuant to Advertisement No. 1 of 2019-20 had already started, the Court expressed “reservations in upturning such decision now at this stage.” In simple terms, the Bench was reluctant to reverse the cancellation or to interfere directly with the fresh selection process.
At this stage of hearing, counsel for the petitioners informed the Court of yet another development: a co-ordinate Bench of the Patna High Court had granted similarly placed petitioners liberty to approach the Principal Secretary or Secretary of the Department to ventilate their grievances.
The petitioners requested that they be given the same type of liberty.
The Division Bench accepted this limited prayer. It did not set aside the cancellation order dated 28.08.2019, nor did it quash the inquiry committee report or the fresh advertisement. Instead, it followed the approach adopted by the other co-ordinate Bench.
The Court held that, keeping in mind the liberty already granted to some applicants, the same liberty would now be extended to these petitioners.
The Bench laid down a clear time-bound procedure. The petitioners, if they so choose, may approach the Principal Secretary of the Department within 30 days. The Principal Secretary is required to give the petitioners a hearing and thereafter pass a reasoned order within 90 days. This order must then be communicated to the petitioners forthwith.
With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of. No further relief was granted in this proceeding.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for people who are selected as PDS dealers but lose their chance due to later cancellation of the selection process.
The Patna High Court did not interfere with the government’s decision to cancel the entire selection and start afresh, especially once a new advertisement process had begun.
However, the Court recognised that successful candidates should still have a forum to present their case. It therefore allowed them to approach the Principal Secretary directly, with a clear time limit for decision.
For similarly situated aspirants, this judgment shows that while courts may hesitate to disrupt an ongoing fresh selection, they can ensure that each candidate gets a chance to be heard by a higher authority in the department.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Should the Patna High Court quash the cancellation of the earlier PDS selection list for Aurangabad and the decision to start a fresh selection process?
Answer: No. The Court declined to upset the cancellation decision, noting the consumer interest, complaints about fairness of the earlier process, and the fact that a new selection process had already started.
Issue: What remedy should be given to previously selected candidates affected by the general cancellation?
Answer: The Court granted them liberty to approach the Principal Secretary of the Department within 30 days, who must give them a hearing and pass a reasoned order within 90 days.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The Court referred to an order dated 25.03.2021 passed by a Single Judge in CWJC No. 21657 of 2019 concerning the same selection process.
- The Court also referred to another decision of the same Single Judge Bench in a similar matter, where the three-member inquiry committee was directed to consider individual cases.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15725 of 2021
Case Title: Chandra Shekhar Pandey & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (1) PLJR 684
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan
Date of Judgment: 23-02-2022
Advocates:
- For the Petitioners: Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, Senior Advocate; Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Advocate
- For the Respondents/State: Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition challenging cancellation of PDS licence selection list and initiation of fresh selection process.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
