Challenge to superseded selection orders fails when the subsequent foundational order remains unchallenged.

The petitioner applied for a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealership pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2017.

He participated in counselling held on 18 July 2018 and was placed fifth in the merit list with 58.12 marks, whereas respondent no. 6 was placed sixth and was subsequently selected as a PDS dealer.

The petitioner alleged that although he had submitted a Scheduled Caste certificate, he was treated as belonging to the BC-I category and was consequently denied an opportunity to appear in the computer examination.

He challenged the merit list and subsequently approached the District Public Grievances Redressal Officer and the Divisional Commissioner, but his grievances were rejected.

During related proceedings, a Three-Member Committee identified irregularities in the selection process, following which the earlier final selection list was cancelled and a fresh selection was directed under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Thereafter, by order dated 15 June 2022, the Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, set aside the cancellation order and its consequential proceedings, directed completion of the selection process on the basis of the final list dated 26 February 2019, and required the authorities to hear the complainants and objectors in respect of specified vacancies.

The District Level Selection Committee thereafter completed the process and issued PDS licences to the selected candidates.

The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the original merit list and the orders of the District Public Grievances Redressal Officer and the Divisional Commissioner, but did not challenge the Secretary’s order dated 15 June 2022.

1. Whether the petitioner could maintain a challenge to the original merit list and the orders of the subordinate authorities when those orders had already been set aside by the Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department?

2. Whether the subsequent PDS selection process and issuance of licences, conducted pursuant to the Secretary’s order dated 15 June 2022, suffered from any legal error or irregularity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?

3. Whether the petitioner’s grievance regarding his caste classification and denial of the computer examination could be adjudicated in the present writ petition without challenging the Secretary’s order that governed the subsequent selection process?

The Court applied the principles governing judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, including that a writ challenge must be directed against a subsisting adverse order and that a court ordinarily does not examine consequential proceedings when the foundational order has not been challenged.

The Court also considered the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, under which the PDS dealership selection process was required to be conducted.

The Court treated the Secretary’s order dated 15 June 2022 as the operative decision governing the subsequent selection and held that the later proceedings were consequential to that order.

No specific judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the judgment.

The Court noted that the specific orders challenged by the petitioner—the merit list, the order of the District Public Grievances Redressal Officer, and the order of the Divisional Commissioner—had already been set aside by the Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department.

The Secretary had directed the authorities to proceed with selection on the basis of the final selection list dated 26 February 2019, while also requiring hearing of the relevant complainants and objectors.

Since the petitioner did not challenge the Secretary’s order, the Court held that he could not obtain effective relief by attacking only the earlier orders or the consequential selection process.

The Court further found no error or irregularity in the fresh selection process, which had been conducted pursuant to the Secretary’s directions and completed by the District Level Selection Committee.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s caste-related grievance and objection to the computer examination could not justify interference in the present proceedings.

It further held that the subsequent selection process was conducted in accordance with the Secretary’s directions and disclosed no legal error or irregularity.

The writ petition was therefore dismissed as devoid of merit, and any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.