Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Firoz Muktadir Hossain vs State Of West Bengal on 26 July, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present: - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhendu Samanta.
W.P.A. No. - 23327 of 2023
Md. Firoz Muktadir Hossain
Vs.
State of West Bengal
For the Petitioners : Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, Adv.
Mr. Pingal Bhattacharya, Adv.,
Mr. Subhankar Das, Adv.
For the Private respondent
No. 6 : Mr. Sagar Bandopadhyay, Adv.,
Ms. Soma Kar Ghosh, Adv.,
Mr. Arabinda Pathak, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Srisanya Bandopadhyay Adv.
Reserved on : 09.07.2024
Judgment on : 26.07.2024
Subhendu Samanta, J.
1. Sub-Divisional Controller (F & S), Berhampore (Sadar) declared a vacancy on 26.09.2022 of Fair Price Shop at the location of Saruliya gate para under Mouza Saruliya, Police Station Beldanga, District Murshidabad.
2. Present petitioner and other candidates including the private respondent submitted application in terms of that notification. Enquiry conducted in respect of proposed godown and shop room of the candidates.
23. Offer letter was issued in favour of the private respondent in respect of FPS licence.
4. The present petitioner being aggrieved by such offer letter in favour of private respondent has filed the instant writ petition on the two grounds:
(i) The nature of the land offer by the private respondent for shop-cum-godown is not in--consonance with the notification.
(ii) The concerned authority has issued the offer letter in favour of the respondent violating the paragraph 7 (b) (ii) of the notifications dated 17th August, 2021.
5. To determine the matter this Court called for the report from the State Authority and on perusal of the report this court disposed of this writ petition on 16th October, 2023, thereby allowed the writ petition and directed the concerned authority to issue letter of grant of licence of dealership of concerned FPS shop in respect of the notified vacancy in favour of the petitioner.
6. Private respondent preferred an intra court appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court being MAT 2127 of 2023.
7. The Hon'ble Division Bench has disposed of the appeal on 18.10.2023 with the observations that:-
"The writ petition shall be heard afresh after receiving affidavits and objections. A suitable decision may be taken thereafter. The Single Bench shall proceed to decide the matter 3 independently. The observations made hereinabove, shall be deemed as tentative and ad interim in nature and only for the purpose of disposal of this appeal".
8. In terms of the direction of the Division Bench this matter is heard at length from all sides.
9. Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the concerned vacancy notification has declared the eligibility criteria of the applicant to apply for a FPS dealership. The said eligibility criteria denoted that the applicant should possess a suitable godown within the vacancy location for storage of Public Distribution Commodities and running the dealership; the area of the godown should be minimum 400 square feet along with cover space of 200 square feet adjacent to godown to be used for office purpose for FPS automation. It is further mentioned in the said notification that there must be shed in front of the shop to accommodate at least 20 people who wait in a queue.
10. Mr. Saha Roy further argued that the notification has also mentioned that some document has to be attached with the application to substantiate the possessional right of the applicant over the proposed place of business. Mr. Saha Roy, further argued that it has been specifically mentioned in such notification that the nature of the land offered for godown and shop must be 'Dokan/Commercial or Bastu; in nature; but the land offer by the private respondent is 'Aush' in nature. On the last date of submission of application the nature of land was "Aush". The private respondent by 4 suppressing the fact has filed the application stating the offer land to be "Bastu". Mr Saha Roy specifically argued that suppression of fact was also dealt with in the said notification, wherein in paragraph 15 (v), it has specifically mentioned that any suppression of fact/ information or providing wrong information in the Application Form or attach document will be considered as a good and justified reason for disqualification of a candidature.
11. Mr. Saha Roy argued that the respondent willfully suppressed the fact that the offer land is not a 'Bastu', in nature but 'Aush' land; the private respondent has also admitted the said fact in his Affidavit-in-opposition. The Land and Land Reforms Officer, Beldanga-I Murshidabad has issued a certificate for conversion of the offered land of private respondent. It would be revealed that, the conversion was made on 23rd of February, 2023 form "Aush to Bastu".
12. It is the specific submission of Mr. Saha Roy that the candidature of the private respondent is required to be cancelled but the State respondent illegally and arbitrarily has allowed his candidature.
13. In support of his contention Mr. Saha Ray has placed the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 11 SCC 58
21. In the instant case, the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of the application though he applied representing that he possessed the same. The letter of offer of appointment was issued to him which was provisional and 5 conditional subject to the verification of educational qualification. i.e. eligibility, character verification, etc. Clause 11 of the letter of offer of appointment dated 23-2-2009 made it clear that in case character is not certified or he did not possess the qualification, the services will be terminated. The legal proposition that emerges from the settled position of law as enumerated above is that the result of the examination does not relate back to the date of examination. A person would possess qualification only on the date of declaration of the result. Thus, in view of the above, no exception can be taken to the judgment of the High Court.
22. It also needs to be noted that like the present appellant there could be large number of candidates who were not eligible as per the requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission of the application forms. Granting any benefit to the appellant would be violative of the doctrine of equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under our Constitution. A large number of such candidates may not have applied considering themselves to be ineligible adhering to the statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement.
23. There is no obligation on the court to protect an illegal appointment. The extraordinary power of the court should be used only in an appropriate case to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the rights of others or create arbitrariness. Usurpation of a post by an ineligible candidate in any circumstance is impermissible. The process of verification and notice of termination in the instant case followed within a very short proximity of the appointment and was not delayed at all so as to even remotely give rise to an expectancy of continuance.
614. He also cited another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in State of UP Vs. Vijay Kumar Misra (2017) 11 Supreme Court Cases 521
6. The position is fairly well settled that when a set of eligibility qualifications are prescribed under the rules and an applicant who does not possess the prescribed qualification for the post at the time of submission of application or by the cut-off date, if any, prescribed under the rules or stated in the advertisement, is not eligible to be considered for such post. It is relevant to note here that in the rules or in the advertisement no power was vested in any authority to make any relaxation relating to the prescribed qualifications for the post. Therefore, the case of a candidate who did not come within the zone of consideration for the post could not be compared with a candidate who possessed the prescribed qualifications and was considered and appointed to the post. Therefore, the so-called confession made by the officer in the Court that persons having lower merit than the respondent have been appointed as SDI (Basic), having been based on a misconception is wholly irrelevant. The learned Single Judge clearly erred in relying on such a statement for issuing the direction for appointment of the respondent. The Division Bench was equally in error in confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Thus the g judgment of the learned Single Judge as confirmed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and has to be set aside.
15. Mr. Sagar Bandapadhyay, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 6 submits that the argument of Mr. Saha Ray is not tenable in the eye of law. Mr. Bandopadhayay submits that the offer land was actually "Bastu" in nature. The record of right mentioned the nature erroneously as "Aush". He submits that the respondent No. 7 6 got the possessory right of the offered land from the lessor who himself subscribed in the Deed of Lease that the nature of the offered land was "Bastu". The Deed of Lease was attached along with the application. The authority concern has correctly after examining the deed of lease find no infirmity. Mr. Bandopadhyay further argued that the Government Authority has proved the fact of nature of land by way of conversion certificate in respect of offer land from "Aush" to "Viti". He further argued that the present petitioner being an unsuccessful candidate cannot challenge the action of the State Authority. Mr. Bandopadhyay further argued that the private respondent No. 6 is the successful candidate in all respect so, the Government Authority though fit to issue license in favour of the respondent No. 6.
16. Mr. Sirsanna Bandopadhayay, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the criteria mentioned in the notification regarding the nature of land are a "Preferred Criteria". Mr. Bandopadhayay further submits that on considering candidature of petitioner as well as the respondent No. 6 and other applicant, the State Authority, according to the provisions of West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) order, 2013, has conducted the procedure and selected the private respondent 6 to be a fit candidate. The act and action of the State Authority cannot be questioned in a writ petition because the administrative decision or policy decision of a State cannot question in a writ court.
17. Heard the Learned Advocate. Perused the materials on record and also perused the impugned notification. To determine 8 the issue the relevant portion of the notification is required to be set out.
Documents to be attached
14.......................
........................
(vi) proof of the highest educational qualification (certificate or mark sheet)................
(vii) document regarding possesional rights over the proposed place of business
a) in case of ownership/shared ownership : (a) Photocopy of record of rights/ registered deed of conveyance/ projects/gift in the name of the applicant,
(b) documents showing character of land as "Dokan"/commercial /Bastu", if record of rights is not produced, (c) up to date property tax receipt, and, (d) NOC of other co-owners (in case of share ownership of the offer-cum- godown)
18. So from the notification, it appears that the document regarding possessional right has to be deposited by an applicant along with the application form. The required documents for possessional right must show character of land has "Dokan/ commercial/ Bastu" if record of right is not produced.
19. In the particular case the respondent No. 6 has produced a registered deed of gift dated 30th January, 2023. It appears from schedule of the registered deed of gift that the father of 9 the private respondent No. 6 has gifted the property in favour of the respondent in respect of two lands being No. R.S. 1075 LR 1304, admeasuring 6.25 satak.
20. The nature of land was mentioned in the said deed of gift as "Aush presently Viti". The major information of the registered deed mentioned the land details of the transfer land, wherein the nature was mentioned as "Aush". It further appears that the land was converted from "Aush" to "Viti" by the concerned BL & LRO after the last date of submission of application. It is fact that at the last date of submission of application for such vacancy the offer land of respondent No. 6 was "Aush" in nature. More surprisingly, it appears from letter dated 16.08.2023 (annexure R-2 of Affidavit- in- opposition by the respondent No. 6) that the State authority has allowed the private respondent to submit the necessary document of conversion certificate and ascertained that after 41 days of issuance of licence the respondent No. 6 has submitted the conversion certificate.
21. It is more surprising to note, how the respondent authority has allowed the application of respondent No. 6 to be accepted when the offered land of respondent No. 6 was admittedly "Aush" in nature. There may have several proposed applicants who have the agricultural land to offer but due to the specific norms of the notification they could not applied for it. The act of the State Authority appears to me arbitrary which favouring the respondent No. 6 to proceed the application with an agricultural land.
22. It is true purport or the notification is that, FPS shop has to be constructed over a non-agricultural land where the 10 business of delivery of PDS can be performed properly. The purpose of the notification further certifies that no agricultural land may be used for the purpose of construction of a godown or shop room for FPS. However the State Authority has failed to appreciate the true purport and meaning of the notification regarding criteria of nature of offered land.
23. The argument advanced on behalf of the State respondent that the nature of land is not a "preferred criteria, is appears to me in a good ground to allow the private respondent No. 6 to offer an agricultural land for construction of godwon and shop room of FPS. Following the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of UP Vs. Vijay Kumar Misra (supra) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (Supra) I am of a view that the granting of benefit to the private respondent by the State Authority is violative to the doctrine of equality which is a backbone of the fundamental rights of our Constitution.
24. Hence this point decided in favour of the petitioner.
Point No. 2 - Mr. Saha Ray argued that the notification dated 17th August 2021 has formulated a mark basis selection system by the concerned authority in selecting new and resultant vacancy of FPS dealer. Mr. Saha Ray further argued that the Clause 7 of the said notification allowed the District Level Fair Price Shop Selection Committee (DLFPSSC) to award more marks or more weightage to a person having graduate unemployed. Mr. Saha Ray further 11 argued that the petitioner as well as the private respondent was awarded total 71 marks each in the field enquiry. The officers conducting field enquiry has remarked in report that "the applicant has complied all the GOs as per requirement. As far as godown condition and location are concerned, it is most convenient to the beneficiaries of the projected service area. Considering all those aspect, the applicant is completely prepared in all segment and most suitable. Candidates among all, so this application considered for recommendation of new FPS licence".
25. Mr. Saha Ray argued that the (DLFPSSC) after considering the entire facts has awarded 24 marks to the private respondent and 22 marks to the petitioner. The marking of DLFPSSC total out of 25 is arbitrary and erroneous. Mr. Saha Roy argued that the marking in favour of the respondent No. 6 is erroneous. The notification dated 17th August 2021 in Clause 7(b)(ii) provided that the graduate unemployed individual shall given preference. The present petitioner is a graduate unemployed individual, so the DLFPSSC must have award more marks to the petitioner. Mr. Sagar Bandopadhayay, Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the private respondent No. 6 submits that the decision of DLFPSSC cannot put under scanner in the writ jurisdiction. It is the administrative decision of the committee itself. The committee has satisfied themselves after perusing the entire enquiry report and has awarded more marks to the private respondent as the area of godown 12 of private respondent No. 6 is more than the area of godown of the petitioner.
26. Mr. Bandopadhayay also submits that in view of the decision of a division bench of this court in Dilip Jana Vs. United Order and Supply Co-operative Society Limited and ors. (MAT 19 of 2021), a Division Bench of this Court comprising the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has opined that "the concerned Authority is the person who knows who is the best suited contractor to cater their needs. That is the reasons the State Authorities have been given a play in their joints while finalising the tender process. The decision of the authority cannot be re-visited in a writ jurisdiction".
27. Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioner has misread and misconstrue the notification dated 17th August 2021. Mr. Bandopadhyay further submits that the Clause 7 of the said notification only allowed the DLFPSSC to give preference when total scores are equal; in the present case the total score of the private respondent and the petitioner is not same.
28. Mr. Bandopadhyay further argued that the pleadings of the petitioner is not in consonance with the argument. On the basis of those pleadings the writ petition cannot be allowed. Mr. Bandopadhyay read out several paragraphs of the writ petition and submits, by virtue of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in V. Chanrashekharam and Anr. Vs. Administrative Officers and Ors (2012) 12 SCC 133, when the petitioner has not approached the court in clean hands, he is not entitled to get any quality 13
44. The appellants have not approached the court with clean hands, and are therefore, not entitled for any relief. Whenever a person approaches a court of equity, in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, it is expected that he will approach the said court not only with clean hands but also with a clean mind, a clean heart and clean objectives. Thus, he who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem, means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by causing loss or injury to another. (Vide Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India51, Noorduddin v. K.L. Anand 2 and Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra53.) cannot become an instrument of oppression or
45. The judicial process abuse, or a means in the process of the court to subvert justice, for the reason that the court exercises its jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice. The interests of justice and public interest coalesce, and therefore, they are very often one and the same. A petition or an affidavit containing a misleading and/or an inaccurate statement, only to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse of process of the court.
29. Mr. Bandopadhyay also referred another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Bharat Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Hariyana (1988) 4 SCC 534 and submits that in writ petition, the petitioner must have to plead and to submit proof thereof.
As has been already noticed, although the point as to profiteering by the State was 14 pleaded in the writ petitions before the High Court as an abstract point of law, there was no reference to any material in support thereof nor was the point argued at the hearing of the writ petitions.
Before us also, no particulars and no facts have been given in the special leave petitions or in the writ petitions or in any affidavit, but the point has been sought to be substantiated at the time of hearing by referring to certain facts stated in the said application by HSIDC. In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-
affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. So, the point that has been raised before us by the appellants is not entertainable. But, in spite of that, we have entertained it to show that it is devoid of any merit.
30. Refuting the contention of Mr. Bandopadhyay Mr. Saha Ray submits that the decisions cited by the State Authority is not at all applicable in this case and they are distinguishable on 15 facts. In fact, in the instant case the State Authority cannot deny their responsibility to act independently and unbiased manner to select the fair price shop license. Mr. Saha Ray argued that required action the State Authority was specifically formulated by the Hon'ble 05 Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Natural Resources Allocation cases reference No. 1 of 2012 reported in 2012 10 SCC 1.
107. From a scrutiny of the trend of decisions it is clearly perceivable that the action of the State, whether it relates to distribution of largesse, grant of contracts or allotment of land, is to be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. A law may not he struck down for being arbitrary without the pointing out of a constitutional infirmity as McDowell case has said. Therefore, a State action has to be tested for constitutional infirmities qua Article 14 of the Constitution. The action has to be fair, reasonable, non-
discriminatory, transparent, non-
capricious. unbiased, without favouritism or nepotism, in pursuit of promotion of healthy competition and equitable treatment. It should conform to the norms which are rational, informed with reasons and guided by public interest, ete. All these principles are inherent in the fundamental conception of Article
14. This is the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
31. Heard the Learned Advocates. Perused the writ petition. It appears that in stating the facts, the writ petitioner has mentioned some extraneous fact which was not actually argued or prove before this writ court. The prayer of the writ 16 petitioner is very distinct and has specifically been dealt with by the writ petitions by filling separate annexures. Moreover, this issue regarding infirmity in the pleadings has never been raised by the State Authority either in the first time before the Single Bench or before the Divison Bench; more surprisingly, the State Authority has not preferred any appeal against the order passed by the Single Judge. The Private respondent has preferred the appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench, wherein the Division Bench remanded the matter to determine independently.
32. In deciding the issue it appears to me that the prayer of the writ petitioner is very much distinct and up to the point; wherein the offer letter the FPS license issued in favour of the private respondent No. 6 was challenged and mandamus was sought for against the State Authorities. The points of infirmity in pleadings as raised has never been dealt with by the private respondent or the State Authority by filing affidavit- in- oppositions. Moreover, the Affidavit- in- oppositions by the private respondent No. 6 and the report in the form of affidavit by state respondents never challenged the issue. Thus the argument advanced by Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay at the stage, appears to me not convincing.
33. In considering the notification dated 17th August 2021 it appears that in providing marking system SCF & S /RO was directed to conduct the enquiry either personally or through officer/or officers of his office who shall assess the infrastructured criteria as stipulated in the control order as well as in the vacancy notification. The total score was 100.
17The SCFS/ RO were given authority to award 75 marks on the basis of the field inquiry. Score sheets of 75 marks according to G.O. dated 17.8.2021 is as follows :-
Total Score - 75 marks SI. No. Specification/criteria Mark
1. Size of Godown:a) 601sq ft or more 15 b) 501 sq ft -600sq ft 10 c) 400 sq ft- 500sq ft 05
2. Size of Attach Shop cum distribution centre:a) 401 sq ft or more 10 b) 301 sq ft-400 sq ft 08 c) 100 sq ft-201 sq ft 05
3. Nature of Possession- of both shop and godwon:a) Ownership 10 b) Long term Lease agreement of 10 year 8
c) Registered Rental 5
4. Proximity of shop-cum-distribution on centre to go-
dwon a) Adjacent to each other 10 b) Non Adjacent 5
5. Building Type- shop and godwon:
a) located on same floor-ground floor 10b) located on different floors-shop cum distribution ntre 8 on centre ground floor
c)located on different floors-godown on ground floor 5
6. Whether 10 T Truck can reach the Godown for Unloading a) Yes 5 b)No. 3
7. Domicile:
a) Resident of the GP/Ward 10 b) Non- resident of the GP/Ward 58. Category of applicant :
a) Scheduled Tribe 5 b) Scheduled Caste 4 c) Other Backward Caste 3 d) Others 2 134. From the above score sheet, it appears that when size of godwon is more than 601 Sqr.ft. The marks allotted is 15. Thereafter, the area of attach shop if within 301 Sqr.ft to 400 Sqr.ft, the marks allotted 08. In the present case area of godwon of the petitioner is 649.75 Sqr.ft and area of godown 18 of private respondent No. 6 is 724.5 Sqr.ft. This is the reason the marks was awarded to both the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 are 15 each. The total score awarded by SCF & S to both the petitioner and respondent No. 6 is 71 out of total 75. Thereafter the report was forwarded to the concern DLFPSSC to evaluate the applicant on the scale of 0 to 25 to determine the suitability of the candidate for amongst for eligible applicants. To assess the true purport of the notification Clause 5, 6 and 7 is required to be set out.
(5) Each member the DLFPSSC shall evaluate the applicant on the Scale of 0-25 to determine the suitability of a Candidate from amongst the eligible applicants. The average of the marks received by the applicant shall be the gross marks secured by him. The DLFPSSC may, if considers necessary, take personal interview of the eligible applicant to find his suitability for the vacancy.
(6) DLFPSSC make its recommendation on the basis total marks of the SCFS plus gross marks given by the Committee.
(7) DLFPSSC or the Sub-committee while giving its report may take into following further consideration:
(a) In case of same Total Score, the applicant in the individual capacity will get the preference.
(b) In case of two or more individuals with same / similar credentials qualify for a particular dealership, preference would be given to following (in descending order):
(i) Single woman (unmarried / widowed / separated with a court decree/order)
(ii) Graduate Unemployed individuals;19
(c) If two or more applicants get the same score, then youngest amongst them will get priority.
35. From the above clauses it appears to me that in considering the suitability of the candidates from amongst the eligible, the DLFPSSC was allowed to take personal interview of the eligible applicants to find the suitability for the vacancy. The total score would be the marks of SCFS + gross marks given by the committee. The DLFPSSC shall have only the authority to find the suitability of a candidate in respect of Clause 7 of the said notification. It is not obligatory for the DLFPSCC to verify the marks given by the SCFS to the each applicants being an Appellate Authority of SCFS. The DLFPSSC are not enjoying appellate power over the decision and marks given by SCFS. The DLFPSSC was given authority at the time of making the report which was specifically mentioned in Clause 7. Clause 7 is divided into three sub- clauses i.e. Clause 7(a),7(b) and & 7(c). 7(a) is completely distinct to 7(b) it cannot be said that at first, the 7(a) has to be complied, thereafter 7(b) and thereafter 7(c). The separate sub-clauses are framed to deal with the different circumstances, on the basis of which DLFPSSC is required to give preference to consider the candidature of a suitable candidate. Clause-7(a) deals with the circumstances when more than one candidates has scored equal total marks. The present fact of the case is applicable under clause -7(b) of said notification.
36. It appears to me that in this case DLFPSSC has awarded more marks in favour of the private respondent No. 6 without any basis. The argument on behalf of the state that, 20 as private respondent No. 6 has possessed a godown having more area than the petitioner; thus, the DLFPSSC must have given more marks. The DLFPSSC has no authority to deal with or enhance marks already awarded by SCFS after full enquiry. Moreover, in the given situations the DLFPSSC was required to assign reasons for awarding more marks to the private respondent to prove their fairness, but they failed to do so.
37. On the above score I am of a view that DLFPSSC has acted arbitrarily in allowing more marks to private respondent No. 6 while the petitioner is entitled to get preference in respect of the impugned vacancy by virtue of clause 7(b)(ii) of the notification dated 17th August 2021 being an unemployed graduate.
38. Under the above observation it appears to me that the Point No. 2 - is also decided in favour of the petitioner.
Hence, act and action of the concern authority appeared to me unjustified.
The offer letter issued by the State Authority in favour of the private respondent in respect of the impugned license for FPS dealership is hereby quashed and set aside.
The State Authority is directed to issue letter of grant of license of dealership of the fare price shop in respect of notified vacancy in favour of the petitioner, in view of Clause 7(b)(ii) of the notification dated 17th August 2021 as "graduate unemployed individual" within 04 weeks from date.
2139. Under the above observation the writ petition is allowed and disposed of. Connected applications, if pending, are also disposed of.
40. Parties to act upon the server copy and urgent certified copy of the judgment be received from the concerned Dept. on usual terms and conditions.
(Subhendu Samanta, J.)