AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:-
“(i)For issuance of writ/ writs, order/ orders direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned memo dated 22.9.2018 issued by the District level appointment cor committee chairmanship of District under the Magistrate, Madhepura, whereby and where under a provisional selection list of P.D.S. dealer has been issued in which the Resapondent No. 12 has been selected on the post of P. D. S. dealer, where as the selection committee have been appointed three family members namely Neha Kumari, Chanda Kumari and Raushan Kumar, they all are belongs to the same family. So far the guide line of the consumer protection Department according to the advertisement in column No. 5 clearly mentioned that from the joint family only one person is entitle for appointed on the post of P.D.S. dealer but the District level selection committee having without look into the guide line of Food and Consumer protection Department, the private respondent no. 12 has been selected.
(ii)For further prayed for direction upon the respondent to immediately selected the petitioner on the post of P. D. S. Dealer in ward No. 06 under gram panchayat Kumar khand Block- Kumarkhand Distgrict-Madhepura.”
At this juncture, the Learned counsel for the respondents contended that Rule 5(iv) of Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 give ample opportunity to prefer a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner. For better appreciation of the case, Rule 5(iv) is incorporated:-
“Rule 5(iv)- Any aggrieved applicant against the recommendation embodied in the publication of the final merit list may file a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner within 15 days mentioning clear reasons with the evidences. The Divisional Commissioner will dispose vacancy-wise complaints. All complaints will be disposed of within a maximum period of 30 days from the date of its receipt.”
Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the respondents.
It is needless to say that there is an effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Rule 5(iv) of Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
Admittedly, the petitioner has approached the District Supply Officer, Madhepura, who is not competent to decide the matter. Therefore, this Court directs the petitioner to prefer a complaint, raising all the grounds along with all relevant documents, before the Divisional Commissioner, as stipulated under Rule 5(iv) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. In turn, the Divisional Commissioner, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months thereafter.
The delay in filing the complaint/application shall liberally be condoned by the Divisional Commissioner, as the Writ petition was filed in the year 2019 itself.
With the above said observation, the Writ petition is disposed of.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.