J. SHAMARLIN KHARDEWSAW Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the sake of convenience, these three writ petitions were heard together, and are now being disposed of by this common judgment To simplify the controversy, I shall first deal with the facts of the case in WP (C) No. 106(SH) of 2012, decide the same and thereafter attempt to apply my decision thereon to the facts of the remaining writ petitions. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 1.12.2011 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Supply), Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Mawkyrwat Civil Sub-Division, West Khasi Hills District (respondent No. 5), the petitioner along with five others applied for appointment as Government Nominees/Agents in the Public Distribution System for the year 2012. The petitioner claims to have an experience of 15 years of running Wholesale Centre under the Public Distribution System, whereas the respondent No. 6, 7 and 8 have 13 years, 5 years and 2 years respectively: the respondent No. 9 has none. There are 6 wholesale centers in the Mawkyrwat Civil Sub-Division. After processing their applications, the respondent No. 5, who is the appointing authority, instead of finalising the matter by himself, merely forwarded the applications of the petitioner and other applicants to Additional Deputy Commissioner (Supply), I/c Mawkyrwat Sub-Division, who, in turn, by his letter dated 22.12.2011 forwarded their applications to the Director, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of Meghalaya (respondent 3). According to the petitioner, two applicants including the respondent No. 9 were new applicants and have: no experience at all in running affair price shop under the Public Distribution System. The Under Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, however, issued the appointment order dated 13.4.2012 informing the respondent 3 about the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 as the Government nominees/agents for the Mawkyrwat Civil Sub-Division. The respondent No. 3 also instructed therein the respondent No. 5 to issue the formal appointment orders in favour of those appointees after they completed the formalities as required under the Meghalaya Foodgrains (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2005 as amended in 2012. It is the contention of the petitioner that in terms of the unamended Meghalaya Foodgrains (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 2005, which is applicable to the facts of this case, it is the respondent No. 5, who is the appointing authority, but he abdicated his authority in entrusting the respondent No. 5, 3 and 2 to select and appoint the private respondents. Such abdication of authority by the respondent No. 5, according to the petitioner, vitiated the impugned selection process and the orders emanating therefrom. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the impugned selection process and the appointment order is illegal as the respondent No. 8 and 9 have no past experience in dealing with public distribution system: this amounts to violation of the Control Order. This is how the writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the intervention of this Court.

(2.) The writ petition is opposed by the State-respondents as well as the private respondents, who filed their respective affidavits-in-opposition. The State denies that there was abdication of authority by the respondent authorities: in fact, the officer who issued to submit the list of 19 applicants to the respondent No. 3 was holding the post of Sub-Divisional Officer (Supply) who was also holding the charge of Additional Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Mawkyrwat by virtue of the power conferred upon him by the Administration of Justice Rules applicable to this State. It is the contention of the State that in terms of the Control Order as amended in 2012, it is provided that application for appointment of Government nominees/agents shall have to be made every year and that both the Deputy Commissioner and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Supply), subject to the approval of the State Government, are the appointing authorities thereof. The impugned appointment order was in fact issued by the respondent No. 5 after the respondent No. 2 conveyed the approval of the Government to the proposal: no illegality was, therefore, committed by the State-respondents in issuing the impugned order of appointment. The petitioner has no enforceable right to reappointment as Government nominee/agent inasmuch as he has no monopoly over public largesse. These are the principal contentions of the State.

(3.) In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 9, he questions the maintainability of the writ petition when there is an appellate forum provided for under Order 19 of the Control Order. It is also contended by the answering respondent that he cannot now challenge the legality of the selection process after he had participated therein: he is barred by the principles of estoppel. He also did not challenge the appointment order dated 1.5.2012; what he challenged is merely the approval order conveyed by the respondent No. 2. He denies that he did not fulfil the essential requirements of the NIT: he has an experience of running Phodkroh Wholesale Centre in the year 2006-07 and Jashiar Wholesale Centre in the year 2008-09 as certified by the respondent No. 4. It is asserted by the answering respondent that under the Control Order, 2005 as amended in 2012, the approval of the appointment of Government nominees/agents before any appointment is made, is made mandatory. These are the sum and substance of the case of the respondent No. 9.