Abul Kalam Azad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5847 of 2019 ====================================================== Abul Kalam Azad Son of Abdul Mobin Resident of Village- Ghaghri, P.S.- Bounsi Basaity, District- Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Patna, Bihar.

2.

The Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Patna, Bihar. 3.

The District Magistrate, Araria.

4.

The District Supply Officer, Collectorate, Araria. 5.

The Block Supply Officer, Raniganj.

6.

Akram Alam Son of Abdul Mobin, resident of Village- Ghaghri, P.S.- Bounsi Basaity, District- Araria.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Soni Shrivastava, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 02-12-2019 The petitioner has challenged the grant of PDS license to private respondent No. 6 on the ground that the rules with regard to selection of the lisencees has been breached.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that preference had to be given to unemployed and educated youth but the private

Patna High Court CWJC No.5847 of 2019(2) dt.02-12-2019 2/3 respondent No. 6 had been serving as a Director of a private school.

It appears from the provisional list of candidates that both the petitioner and private respondent No. 6 are educated but private respondent No. 6 has a higher qualification of Masters in Arts. Apart from this, even if it is accepted that private respondent No. 6 had been the Director of a private school, that does not add to any disqualification to his candidature in view of the instances of the disqualifications having been enumerated in Rule 11 of the Bihar Targated Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. What is proscribed is a post of profit in the government and not any private school where a person may not be paid at all. No proof has been offered on behalf of the petitioner to demonstrate that private respondent No. 6 had been holding a regular post and had been earning profits out of his assignment.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5847 of 2019(2) dt.02-12-2019 3/3 In that view of the matter, the selection process cannot be faulted with.

There is no merit in the petition and consequently the same is dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Shageer/- U