Nita Kumari vs State Of Bihar

Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Alok Ranjan for the State.

The petitioner has laid a grievance that the private respondent no.7 has been granted license to her exclusion in a wrong manner.

It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that she has better qualification than the private respondent no.7 and that the private respondent no.7 is a resident of a village which is three kilometers away from the place for which the advertisement was issued. It has also been contended that the respondent no.7 had not submitted her character certificate as well as the matriculation certificate along with her application but, even then, she was selected against the candidature of the petitioner.

In view of the nature of the dispute having been raised by the petitioner as also the notification dated 21.07.2022 issued by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 3 and 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clause-36 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, we direct that in the event of the petitioner making a suitable representation/complaint before the concerned Divisional Commissioner within a period of 30 days, the Divisional Commissioner shall look into the matter and after hearing all the stakeholders, including Respondent No. 7, shall pass a final order within a further period of 90 days, giving reasons in support of the decision taken by him.

The order so passed by the authority shall be made available to the petitioner as well as the Respondent No. 7.

We have specifically asked Respondent No. 7 to be heard by the Divisional Commissioner as the present order is being passed in his absence.

With the aforestated observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.