An employed family member disentitles a widow from compassionate PDS dealership appointment under Clause 10.

The petitioner’s deceased husband, Vinay Kumar Singh, was a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer for Village Lohanipur, Gram Panchayat Dihura, Block Tekari, District Gaya, holding FPS ID No. 123800300200 and Licence No. 15/16. He died on 11 May 2021, following which his licence was cancelled and the beneficiaries were attached to another PDS shop

The petitioner, his widow, claimed that she had assisted him in operating the shop, possessed the requisite educational qualifications, and had no independent source of livelihood. She applied on 25 August 2021 for appointment as PDS dealer on compassionate grounds

The District Selection Committee, Gaya, rejected her claim by Memo No. 36 dated 29 August 2022, stating that the deceased had left behind one son and three daughters and that his son, Sanjeev Kumar, was employed with Magadh Gramin Bank

The petitioner consequently sought a writ directing her appointment or reconsideration of her claim

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment as a PDS dealer on compassionate grounds in place of her deceased husband

2. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s claim by the District Selection Committee under Clause 10 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, was illegal or liable to be interfered with under writ jurisdiction

The Court applied Clause 10 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, under which the existence of an employed member in the deceased dealer’s family disentitles the claimant from appointment as a PDS dealer on compassionate grounds

The Court further applied the principle that writ jurisdiction will not be exercised to interfere with a decision of the competent authority absent demonstrated illegality, infirmity, or material procedural defect

The Court found that the petitioner’s claim had already been considered and rejected by the competent District Selection Committee

The respondents specifically established that the deceased dealer’s son, Sanjeev Kumar, was employed with Magadh Gramin Bank. Applying Clause 10 of the 2016 Control Order, the Court held that the presence of an employed family member rendered the petitioner ineligible for compassionate appointment, notwithstanding her status as the deceased dealer’s widow, her alleged experience, or her educational qualifications

Since the petitioner placed no material demonstrating illegality or infirmity in the Committee’s decision, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction

The writ petition was dismissed, and any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of