- (1.) These two writ petitions are directed against an undated order of the Director, District Distribution, Procurement and Supply (hereafter the Director), which was conveyed, inter alia, to the two petitioners vide memo dated May 3, 2013. While acting in compliance with an order dated May 16, 2012 passed by an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the Director opined that neither of the two petitioners was capable of performing distribution of foodgrains from their offered locations and that they are not eligible for appointment as distributor under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 (hereafter the Order). It was, accordingly, directed that the candidature of all the applicants who had applied pursuant to the vacancy notice dated February 8, 2006 stands cancelled. There have been several previous rounds of litigation before this Court in connection with the selection process that was initiated for appointment of a distributor at Assam More, Jalpaiguri pursuant to vacancy notice dated February 8, 2006. The order dated May 16, 2012 referred to in the impugned order was passed in connection with MAT 598 of 2012, being a writ appeal preferred by the petitioner in W.P. 17936 (W) of 2013 (hereafter Rajesh). In such appeal, the petitioner in W.P. 18371(W) of 2013 (hereafter Sunil) was the first respondent whereas the State and the officers of the Food and Supplies Department were the other respondents. The operative part of the order dated May 16, 2012 is quoted below: "Therefore, after quashing the said report, it appears to us that fresh verification should be done in the matter in terms of the control order under Clause 23(iii) of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 and should start from the level from which the Division Bench upheld the decision of the Single Bench and quashed the 3rd enquiry report. Accordingly, we hold that the enquiry should be made from that stage and enquiry report should be placed before the authority to give effect to the said recommendation of panel which was placed before the authority. Accordingly, in our opinion, the order so passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge cannot sustain in the eye of law and has to be set aside on the ground that enquiry should have been done by the authorities for such appointment from the stage where the Court set aside the 3rd enquiry report and thereby the said list cannot be said to be reached its finality in respect of choosing the person in question. Such facts, in our opinion, escaped from the mind of the Hon'ble Single Judge. Hence, we allow this appeal and direct the said authority to complete the enquiry for a period of six months from the date of the communication of the order to give effect thereto in accordance with the provisions of law."
(2.) The Director by an order dated August 07, 2012 had appointed Jamini Kumar Baidya, Officer-on- Special Duty and ex-officio Joint Director, District Distribution, Procurement and Supply (hereafter the OSD) for an on spot enquiry on the status of the competing candidates for appointment as Distributor for the subject vacancy. It appears from the report dated November 30, 2012 of the OSD that an enquiry was conducted on November 21, 2012 and a proforma report of each candidate on the factual position of godown alongwith other allied matters was prepared whereupon signature of both Rajesh and Sunil were obtained as a mark of their knowledge of the contents of enquiry. It further appears that one of the three competing candidates, Jugal Kishore Shanghai (hereafter Jugal) was not present during the enquiry and on local enquiry it was revealed that the godown proposed by him presently was not under his possession. The enquiry report also contained "points of anomalies" insofar as Rajesh and Sunil are concerned. It would be proper to set out from the report of the OSD the points of anomalies found by him, reading as follows: "1. Report on Sunil Saha (a) The rented godown has two doors which is not ideal. (b) 190 ft. approach road from the truckable main road is Kachha (Mud-built) one which is not worthy for ply of load truck. (c) The character of the land on which the godown is constructed is 'Sahari' which is an 'Agri land' and needs conversion. No conversion was done. Moreover, the land lord as stated has no 'Record of Right', i.e., parcha of land. (d) The location of the godown is situated beyond 500 metre of the vacancy spot which contravenes the stipulation imposed in the Vacancy - Notice. 2. Rajesh Dhanuka: (a) The godown of Mr. Dhanuka is rented one. Landlady of the godown is Smt. Sabita Chowdhury the husband of whom, Sri Nirbhay Chowdhury, is a Distributor in the Sub-Div. (b) According to the agreement with Smt. Chowdhury, the constructed godown is on 2(two) Dag. i.e., Dag No. -1028& 1029 but in accordance with Site Plan of the deed the godown is situated on Dag No. - 7027 & 1028 (details of godown s location shown in each proforma report). Dag No. 1029 is adjacent to truckable main road. (c) Dag No. - 1029 is vacant and not given on rent. So, entry to the godown will not be possible, if the vacant space of Dag 1029 remains outside agreement in between the Lessor and the Lessee. So, virtually the operation of the godown will be kept under the control of Mrs. and Mr. Chowdhury, Land Lady and her husband. (d) Moreover, the vacant land under Dag No. -1029 bearing 0.07 Dec. area is Kaccha one, the distance from main road to the godown is 250 ft. (approx.) and as it is Kaccha (Mud-built) loaded truck cannot be able to ply."
(3.) The last two paragraphs of the report have a bearing on the issue raised in these two writ petitions and, therefore, are set out below: "Considering the points of discrepancies notes aforesaid, in my opinion no one is qualified and eligible for appointment as MR Distributor at Assam More, Jalpaiguri. So, a re-vacancy may be declared at the same place where the contending candidates may be given liberty to apply afresh alongwith all others.";