SUSANTA KUMAR HALDER Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court:- The petitioner in this WP under art.226 of the Constitution of India dated March 24, 2010 is questioning a decision of the Joint Director (Licence), DTE. of D.D.P&S dated November 27, 2009 (WP p.24). The relevant part of the decision is quoted below:- "In response to the above cited memo no. regarding the above mentioned subject, I am directed to request him to obtain Govt. approval for declaration of fresh vacancy in the light of PDS (M&C) Order 03 (Notification no.7044-FS, dt. 18.11.04), after cancellation of the previous notification with notice upon the previous fit candidate that he may also apply when applications will be invited by him for the appointment. " The M.R. Dealer for Kuthuria in the District Nadia died. Consequently, the vacancy was notified. The Sub-divisional Controller (F&S) issued a notice dated March 23, 1984 inviting applications from the intending candidates. Six applicants including the petitioner and one Madhusudan Ghose applied for the dealership. The petitioner was selected. His selection was approved by the competent authority. The Sub-divisional Controller was to issue the appointment letter. Questioning the petitioner 's selection for the dealership, Madhusudan filed a WP in this Court under art.226. A Civil Rule No. 9921(W) of 1987 was issued by this Court. It is submitted that this Court passed an interim order, and that because of pendency of that WP and operation of the interim order passed therein the petitioner could not be appointed. By an order dated March 7, 2002 the WP filed by Madhusudan was dismissed for non-appearance of the parties. Thereupon the Sub-divisional Controller took steps for appointing the petitioner. The District Controller forwarded the case to the Joint Director for necessary instruction. Under the circumstances, the Joint Director gave the impugned decision. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Y.V.Rangaiah & Ors. v. J.Sreenivasa Rao & Ors., (1983) 3 SCC 284, Mr. Saha Roy appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 was not applicable to the selection process initiated in 1984, the Joint Director could not cancel the selection process citing the Control Order.

(2.) MR . Dutta appearing for the State has submitted that in view of the changed circumstances in that the Control Order came into force during pendency of the selection process, the Joint Director was justified in cancelling the selection process with direction to notify the vacancy. According him, the decision is just and fair, because the cancellation of the process does not prevent the petitioner from participating in the proposed new process as a candidate. The question is whether citing the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 the selection process initiated in 1984 could be cancelled. The admitted position is that the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 is not applicable to the selection process that was initiated according to the rules and regulations which were in force in 1984.

(3.) FOR these reasons, I set aside the impugned decision, allow the WP to this extent and order as follows. Within four weeks from the date this order is served the Sub-divisional Controller (F & S), Krishnanagar, Nadia, shall issue the letter appointing the petitioner as the Dealer for the shop for which he was selected through the process initiated by the notice dated March 23, 1984. No costs. Certified xerox.