Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In March 2021, the Patna High Court delivered an important ruling concerning the cancellation of Public Distribution System (PDS) dealership selection without giving the selected candidate a fair hearing. The judgment reinforces the principle of natural justice, particularly in administrative decisions affecting livelihood rights.

The petitioner, a woman from Aurangabad district, had been selected for a PDS license through a proper selection process. Her selection was approved by memo dated 08 March 2019, and she had duly deposited the required amount through challan. However, her selection was later cancelled following an enquiry conducted by a three-member committee constituted by the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.

The petitioner challenged three documents before the High Court:

1. Letter No. 726 dated 28 August 2019, issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Gaya;
2. Letter No. 4410 dated 18 September 2019, issued by the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Bihar, directing a fresh selection process;
3. Enquiry Report dated 08 July 2019, submitted by the three-member committee.

The background shows that several unsuccessful candidates had complained of irregularities in the Aurangabad PDS selection process. The High Court, in an earlier case (CWJC No. 7646 of 2019), had directed the Divisional Commissioner to complete the enquiry and take a decision within three months. Acting on that, the Commissioner formed a committee comprising two Deputy Development Commissioners and an Additional Collector.

During this enquiry, one complainant alleged that the petitioner had a pending criminal case, which disqualified her. However, the complainant never appeared before the committee, and no document was produced to substantiate the allegation. The committee nonetheless included her case in its overall findings, which recommended cancellation of the entire selection process due to procedural lapses like inadequate notice of the computer knowledge test to candidates.

The petitioner argued that:

• She had already been selected and had fulfilled all conditions, creating a vested right in her favor.
• The committee’s general report on procedural flaws could not be used to cancel her individual selection without notice or hearing.
• The order of the Commissioner, passed hastily before his transfer, violated the principles of natural justice since she was not given any chance to defend herself.

The State argued that the enquiry was fair and applied uniformly to all candidates, and the petitioner could reapply in the next round.

After reviewing the facts, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad observed that:

• The committee’s role was to examine general grievances in the selection process, not to cancel individual selections without giving affected candidates a hearing.
• Since the petitioner had already been selected and had completed all required formalities, a right had accrued to her, and her selection could not be cancelled without observing due process.
• The allegation of a criminal case was never proved, and the complainant had not participated in the enquiry.
• The Commissioner’s order was passed in haste and misrepresented as being pursuant to the Court’s earlier order, which was incorrect.

The Court concluded that the petitioner’s right to be heard was denied, causing serious prejudice. It therefore set aside the cancellation order insofar as it related to her.

The Court further directed the licensing authority to issue the PDS license to the petitioner within 30 days based on Memo No. 198 dated 08.03.2019. However, the authority was given liberty to re-examine the complaint later, if it wished, but only after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This ruling underscores several key principles that affect administrative fairness and livelihood rights:

• Natural justice cannot be ignored even in administrative or departmental enquiries. Before cancelling any selection or license, authorities must provide the concerned person a chance to respond.
• A vested right arises once a candidate is selected and fulfills all formal requirements. Such right cannot be taken away arbitrarily.
• General enquiries about procedural flaws cannot be used to cancel an individual’s appointment without specific evidence or participation of the affected person.
• The Court reminded public officials that judicial orders must be implemented lawfully, not interpreted as blanket authorization to act arbitrarily.
• The ruling provides relief to numerous candidates across Bihar whose selections under public schemes are sometimes cancelled collectively without proper inquiry.

For the general public, this judgment means that government decisions affecting employment or livelihood must always be transparent, fair, and based on evidence.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Whether the cancellation of a PDS selection without giving the selected candidate an opportunity of hearing is valid?
  • Decision: No. The cancellation violated the principles of natural justice and was set aside.
• Whether a general enquiry report can justify cancellation of an individual’s selection without specific proof of wrongdoing?
  • Decision: No. The committee’s general observations did not apply to the petitioner’s case.
• Whether the allegation of criminal involvement against the petitioner had any basis?
  • Decision: No. The allegation was unsubstantiated, and the complainant failed to appear before the enquiry committee.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• CWJC No. 7646 of 2019, Patna High Court — earlier direction to the Divisional Commissioner to conduct an enquiry.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• The Court emphasized general jurisprudence on natural justice, though no specific citation was mentioned.

Case Title

Petitioner v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21657 of 2019

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 326

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, Mr. Saket Gupta — for the Petitioner
• Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG-5 — for the State

Link to Judgment

MTUjMjE2NTcjMjAxOSMxI04=-nI7H04IDyek=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.