Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of a public distribution system (PDS) dealer under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The petitioner sought to quash the appointment of another candidate and to be appointed herself. The Court noted that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 32(iii) of the 2016 Order. While the limitation period for filing the appeal had lapsed, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks. It directed the District Magistrate to condone the delay and dispose of the appeal within three months.
Facts
The petitioner had applied for appointment as a PDS dealer for Revenue Village-Siria, Panchayat-Pabheda, Dhanarua Block. She claimed that she was placed at serial number 1 in the selection panel but was overlooked in favour of another candidate who was granted appointment via memo dated 05.10.2017. The petitioner alleged arbitrariness and claimed ineligibility of the selected candidate. She contended that her own family already had a PDS dealer (her mother-in-law), which was used against her, despite no legal bar to such relation in the selection guidelines. She thus sought the cancellation of the other candidate’s appointment and her own inclusion.
Issues
- Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the 2016 Control Order?
- Whether the delay in approaching the appellate authority could be condoned?
- Whether the petitioner could be directly appointed through court directions?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner submitted that:
- She was ranked higher on the selection list, yet was unfairly bypassed.
- The appointment of the respondent candidate was illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to public policy.
- She had not filed an appeal due to lack of awareness and the lapse of the appeal period.
- She now wished to file an appeal but required condonation of delay.
- The selection of a candidate whose family status made her ineligible under implied norms should be invalidated.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State contended that:
- Section 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides a statutory appeal remedy.
- The petitioner had not availed the appeal mechanism and approached the High Court prematurely.
- The plea for appointment and challenge to selection was not maintainable in writ jurisdiction without first exhausting alternative remedies.
- The earlier appointment was legal and valid as per existing rules and procedures.
Analysis of the Law
The Court emphasized the principle that where a statutory alternative remedy exists, especially one which allows appeal against appointment orders, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked prematurely. Section 32(iii) of the 2016 Control Order expressly provides for an appellate remedy to the District Magistrate within 30 days. Since the petitioner’s grievance related to non-selection and alleged procedural illegality, the appropriate forum was the appellate authority.
The petitioner’s prayer for condonation of delay was addressed through judicial discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, recognizing that the right to appeal should not be denied on purely technical grounds when substantive justice is at stake.
Precedent Analysis
While the judgment did not cite previous authorities, it reaffirmed settled principles laid down in several precedents:
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh (1958 SCR 595): Writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when adequate alternative remedy is available.
- CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2013) 357 ITR 357 (SC): Writ petition is not maintainable when statutory remedy exists unless there is breach of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction.
- The Court’s approach is consistent with administrative law doctrines of judicial restraint and exhaustion of remedies.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that:
“The petitioner has an alternative remedy for filing an appeal… and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to file the appeal within four weeks… Delay in filing shall be condoned.”
By exercising equitable jurisdiction, the Court ensured that the petitioner was not rendered remediless but simultaneously respected statutory procedure. The Court refrained from entertaining the merits of the challenge, recognizing that such issues required factual and administrative scrutiny by the District Magistrate.
Conclusion
The High Court:
- Declined to quash the appointment of the PDS dealer.
- Directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the District Magistrate within four weeks.
- Ordered the District Magistrate to condone any delay and decide the matter on merits within three months.
- Disposed of any pending interlocutory applications.
Implications
- Reinforces the legal principle that statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction.
- Clarifies that delay in filing an appeal can be condoned if sufficient cause exists.
- Encourages administrative resolution of disputes in PDS dealer appointments before judicial intervention.
FAQs
Q1. Can a High Court directly quash a PDS dealer appointment under writ jurisdiction?
Not ordinarily. The petitioner must first file an appeal under Section 32(iii) of the Bihar TPDS Control Order, 2016.
Q2. What if the time limit for appeal has lapsed?
The Court can allow condonation of delay, and the appellate authority is directed to consider the appeal on merits.
Q3. What if a more meritorious candidate is overlooked in PDS dealer selection?
Such a candidate should immediately file an appeal before the District Magistrate, citing procedural errors or bias.
