AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the approval letter dated 13th May, 2019 issued by the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Under Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department and the impugned appointment letter dated 28th May, 2019 issued by the respondent No. 4 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Nongpoh under the provisions of the Meghalaya Food Grains (Public Distribution System) Control Order 2004 as amended in 2012.
The main ground as set up by the writ petitioner is that she possesses the most experience from amongst all the other applicants and as such, is entitled to be appointed as a PDS retailer and her non appointment therefore is arbitrary and illegal and in violation of the Control Order of 2004 as amended. The further case of the petitioner is that she has already deposited a sum of Rs. 2,57,339/- before the Supply Department, Nongpoh on 08.05.2019 for lifting of food-grains.
Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned counsel for the petitioner as submitted in WP(C) No. 196 of 2019 a connected matter, contends that by virtue of experience of the petitioner, the appointment should have been granted to her and also submits that the private respondents and other contenders who were considered lack the criteria as prescribed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments: -
(i) Nand Kishore Saraf v. State of Rajasthan & Anr: AIR 1965 SC 1992.
(ii) Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Kaila Kumar Paliwal & Anr: (2007) 10 SCC 260.
Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned AAG assisted by Ms. I. Lyngwa, learned GA for the respondent No. 1-4 submits that the factum of deposit of the said amount would have no bearing, inasmuch as, on the Appointment letter being issued, the newly appointed dealers (PDS) had deposited the money for July 2019 quota on 31.05.2019 and 06.06.2019 and that the deposit creates no vested rights in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that the grounds as set up being similar, the arguments as advanced in WP(C) No. 196 of 2019 be taken into consideration.
I have heard learned counsels for the parties.
This instant case is similar and identical to WP(C) No. 196 of 2019, except for the averment that money had been deposited by the petitioner for lifting of food-grains. As such, the judgment rendered therein will cover this instant case. With regard to the aspect of deposit of money, the petitioner can avail of other remedy for recovery of the same, if the said averment is correct. It is noted that the respondent No. 5 inspite of service of notice did not appear, however the non-appearance of respondent No. 5 will have no bearing on the outcome of the case.
Accordingly, this writ petition being covered by the judgment rendered in WP(C) No. 196 of 2019 is also dismissed.