Alleged interpolation in a selection enquiry report warrants independent reconsideration after hearing affected candidates.

The petitioner and the private respondent applied for a licence for Fair Price Shop vacancy ID 202300223204.

Following an enquiry conducted on 7 January 2025, both candidates were found eligible, but the private respondent was assessed as more suitable because higher marks were awarded for accessibility to the shop-cum-godown.

The petitioner alleged that the selection process was tainted by nepotism and that his candidature had been improperly rejected despite his recommendation before the District Controller, Food and Supplies.

Upon examining the State’s written instructions and documents, the Court noticed an apparent interpolation in the enquiry report concerning the measurement of the approach road and the distance of the private respondent’s shop-cum-godown from the central point of the notified vacancy.

In the meantime, the private respondent had been granted the licence, ration cards had been tagged to the shop, and the Fair Price Shop had become operational.

Whether the apparent interpolation in the enquiry report concerning the approach road and distance of the private respondent’s shop-cum-godown vitiated the selection process and warranted reconsideration of the petitioner’s candidature

Whether the private respondent’s operational licence should be disturbed during the reconsideration process, having regard to the public interest and continuity of ration distribution

Whether the competent authority was required to provide both candidates an opportunity of personal hearing and pass a reasoned and speaking order on the competing candidatures

The Court applied the principles of administrative fairness, natural justice, and reasoned decision-making.

Where material irregularity or apparent interpolation in an administrative selection record raises a prima facie concern affecting comparative evaluation, the competent authority must conduct an independent enquiry, afford the affected parties an opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court also applied the principle of balancing equities and protecting public interest by permitting continuation of an existing public-distribution licence pending final administrative determination.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court did not finally determine which candidate was legally entitled to the licence.

However, the apparent interpolation relating to the approach-road measurement and the distance of the private respondent’s premises was sufficiently serious to establish a prima facie case for judicial intervention.

Since those measurements had a direct bearing on the comparative marks and suitability assessment, the Court directed an independent enquiry rather than accepting the existing assessment at face value.

To comply with natural justice, the respondent no. 2 was directed to hear both candidates and independently reassess their candidatures through a reasoned and speaking order.

At the same time, because the private respondent’s shop was already operational and involved public distribution of ration, the Court preserved the existing arrangement temporarily to avoid prejudice to the public at large.

The respondent no. 2 was directed to conduct an independent enquiry into the petitioner’s candidature and ascertain the reasons for the interpolation in the private respondent’s enquiry report, particularly concerning the approach-road size and the distance from the notified vacancy’s central point.

After granting both parties a personal hearing, the authority was required to pass and communicate a reasoned and speaking order within the prescribed time limits.

The authority was also directed to take action in accordance with law against the enquiry officer responsible for the interpolation.

Until the administrative decision attained finality, the private respondent was permitted to continue operating the Fair Price Shop.