AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 19-08-2026
The petitioner has filed the Writ petition for the following reliefs:
“(i)To issue appropriate writ/writs in the nature of certiorari for quashing the selection list dated 04.02.2016 relating to MBC Category at serial No.37 issued by Respondent No.4 whereby and where under claim of the petitioner on the basis of seniority list has been rejected and second position candidates private Respondent No.9 has been selected as P.D.C. Dealer under MBC category in Chorwar Panchayat, Block-Ariyari, District-Sheikhpura without considering the selection/ merit list in which petitioner got 1st position and she is not member of joint family after the date of partition of Joint family i.e. 20.03.2015 by the Gram Kuchahari of the said Panchayat. In this regard petitioner filed application along with the documents of the partition on 19.01.2016 before the District Magistrate-cum-Chairman P.D.S. Selection Committee but without considering the fact impugned selection list dated 04.02.2016 relating to the petitioner has been issued.
(ii)To issue an appropriate writ/writs in the nature of mandamus for commanding/ directing the respondent to select the petitioner as P.D.S. Dealer in Chorwar panchayat Block-Ariyari, District-Sheikhpura in view of seniority list in which petitioner gets 1st position under MBC category.
(iii)Any other relief/reliefs may be granted in favour of the petitioner for which she is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The brief facts culled out of the Writ petition are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 20.04.2015, applications were invited for selection of P.D.S. Dealers under different categories, pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied under the MBC category for Chorwar Panchayat. A provisional seniority list was prepared, in which the petitioner stood first in the MBC category. The petitioner claims, that prior to the issuance of the advertisement, by an order dated 20.03.2015 passed by the Gram Kuchahari, her husband had separated from the joint family and, therefore, she was no longer a member of the joint family. She submitted the relevant documents in support of her claim before the competent authority, however, her claim was not considered and, by the impugned selection list dated 04.02.2016, the second-position candidate in the provisional seniority list, respondent no.9, was selected as the P.D.S. Dealer.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being the first-ranked candidate in the MBC category and having produced proof of separation from the joint family, ought to have been selected. It is contended that the respondents illegally ignored the relevant documents produced by the petitioner and proceeded to select respondent no.9, who was placed second in the seniority list. It is therefore submitted that the impugned selection is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the State submits that, although the petitioner stood first in the provisional seniority list under the MBC category, she was not selected as her father-in-law, was running the P.D.S. shop in Chorwar Panchayat, is residing jointly with her and is an existing P.D.S. Dealer. It is submitted that the partition order dated 20.03.2015 passed by the Gram Kachahari was intended to create a separate status for the petitioner and thereby obtain an undue advantage in the selection.
It is further submitted by the Learned counsel for the State that respondent no.9, who stood second in the MBC seniority list, was selected by the competent Selection Committee, in accordance with the applicable Government instructions governing P.D.S. dealerships, and the reason for non-selection of the petitioner was duly recorded in the selection list. The selection, therefore, suffers from no illegality or arbitrariness and the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
A counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of the private respondent/respondent No. 9. Learned counsel for private respondent no. 9 submits that although the petitioner stood first in the provisional seniority list, under the MBC category, her candidature was rightly rejected, as her father-in-law was holding a P.D.S. licence in the same Panchayat and the petitioner continued to be a member of the joint family. It is submitted that the Clause 2.6 of P.D.S. Control Order 2001 prohibits grant of more than one fair price shop licence to members of the same joint family.
It is further submitted that the alleged partition order dated 20.03.2015 does not establish a valid separation of the petitioner from the joint family, as all the coparceners were neither parties nor signatories to the alleged partition. The document was, therefore, rightly not relied upon by the Selection Committee. Upon exclusion of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground, respondent no. 9, being the next eligible candidate in the MBC category, was duly selected. Her selection and subsequent P.D.S. licence are valid and in accordance with law, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Writ petition as devoid of merits.
For better appreciation of the rule position, Clause 2.6 of P.D.S. Control Order 2001 is quoted hereinbelow:
"2.6Shops shall not be allotted to following people:-(a)Shops shall not be allotted to more than one member of a joint family. Following members shall be considered under the definition of family; Mother, Father, Brother, Sister-in-law, Wife, Son, Daughter-in-law, Step Brother.It shall come into force on the date of its notification.(b)Elected Mukhia, Sarpanch, Ward Member, Panchayat Samiti member, Zila Parishad Member, M.L.A., M.P., Member of Municipal Corporation and Municipality till their tenure.(c)Flour Mill owner.(d)Minor, Lunatic or is of unsound mind and undischarged insolvent.(e)Applicant shall not be given license if he/she is finally convicted under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955).(f)If applicant holds the post of profit in the Government."
Having heard the Learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, this Court finds that although the petitioner stood first in the provisional seniority list under the MBC category, her candidature was not considered on the ground that her father-in-law was holding a P.D.S. licence in the same Panchayat and that the petitioner continued to be a member of the joint family.
Clause 2.6 of the P.D.S. Control Order, 2001 specifically provides that a P.D.S. shop shall not be allotted to more than one member of a joint family and includes, inter alia, father and daughter-in-law within the definition of family. The alleged partition order dated 20.03.2015 relied upon by the petitioner has not been found sufficient by the competent authority to establish her separate status from the joint family. Upon exclusion of the petitioner, respondent no.9, being the next eligible candidate, was selected.
In view of the aforesaid facts and the applicable provision, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned selection warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.