SHILLONG BENCH PYNSKHEM KHARPURI Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment and order, I propose to dispose of both the writ petitions inasmuch as both the writ petitions involve substantially identical facts and raise same questions of law for adjudication.

(2.) The petitioners, except petitioner Nos. 7, 8 and 9, in WP(C) No. 76(SH)/ 2010, are permanent residents of different villages within East Khasi Hills and Ri Bhoi districts and they carry on their business as Government nominees/wholesale dealers, (i.e., as appointed nominees) under the Public Distribution System of food grains. By advertisement, dated 5.10.2009, respondent No. 4, namely, Deputy Commissioner, (Supply), Ri Bhoi district, Nongpoh, invited applications for appointment of Government nominees/wholesalers, (i.e., appointed nominees), in Public Distribution System, under the district of Ri Bhoi, for the year 2010, in respect of as many as nine wholesale centers. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioners, amongst others, applied seeking appointment as appointed nominees. In course of time, respondent No. 4, namely, Deputy Commissioner, (Supply), Ri Bhoi district, Nongpoh, selected, as many as 44 persons, for being appointed as appointed nominees/Government nominees in. respect of the said nine wholesale centers. The names of the persons, who stood so selected, were forwarded to the State Government by the respondent No. 4 for approval. By a cabinet decision, taken on 15.1.2010, the Government approved the proposal for optimising the number of Government nominees (i.e., appointed nominees). Following the decision, so taken, a letter was issued, on 5.2.2010, by respondent No. 2, namely, Under Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, Shillong, communicating to respondent No. 3 the Government's decision to appoint 12 (twelve) Government nominees/agents for Public Distribution System, for the year 2010, in the district of Ri Bhoi, for the said nine wholesale centers with direction that the respondent No. 4 shall issue appointment order(s) accordingly. Acting upon the instruction, so given by the letter, dated 5.2.2010 aforementioned, respondent No. 4 has passed an order, on 18.2.2010, appointing the said twelve persons as Government nominees/ wholesalers, (i.e., appointed nominees) in respect of the said nine wholesale centers, for the year 2010, with the stipulation that their appointments would expire on 31.12.2010. As the persons, who were so appointed, did not include the present petitioners, though they too had figured, except petitioner Nos. 7, 8 and 9, in the said select list of 44 persons prepared by the respondent No. 4, despite the fact that the petitioners had the advantage of experience of having worked as Government nominees, (i.e., appointed nominees) in the past, they have come to this court challenging the selection and appointment of the said twelve persons as appointed nominees in respect of the said nine centers as illegal, arbitrary and mala fide and also seeking, with the help of the present application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issuance of appropriate writ(s) setting aside and quashing the impugned appointments and also further necessary directions to be issued to the State respondents.

(3.) So far as WP(C) No. 77(SH)/2010 is concerned, the petitioner is a cooperative Society, which is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. This petitioner too was an applicant for appointment as Government nominees/wholesalers, (i.e., appointed nominees) in Public Distribution System in pursuance of the advertisement, dated 5.10.2009, aforementioned. As this petitioner's name does not figure in the list of persons, who have been appointed pursuant to the Government's direction given by letter, dated 5.2.2010, this petitioner too has impugned, inter alia, the decision of the respondents not to make appointment of the said 44 selected persons including this petitioner and to restrict the same to the extent of 12 selectees of the Government, who are private respondents in the writ petition. By its writ petition, this petitioner has also sought for setting aside and quashing the appointments of the private respondents as appointed nominees and also further necessary directions to be issued to the State respondents.