Petitioner directed to pursue the effective alternative remedy before the Divisional Commissioner.

The petitioner applied for selection as a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer for Ward No. 13 of Pakridayal Town Panchayat, East Champaran. She claimed that she was a woman, belonged to a minority community, and possessed higher educational qualifications, having secured 60.3% marks in Intermediate. However, respondent No. 6, Sanjeev Kumar, was selected for the dealership by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

The petitioner earlier approached the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1815 of 2019, where, by order dated 19 February 2019, the District Collector-cum-Chairman of the District Selection Committee was directed to consider her representation and pass a reasoned order. After approximately three years, the District Collector disposed of the matter on 16 July 2022 by rejecting the petitioner’s claim in Public Distribution Appeal No. 29 of 2019.

The petitioner challenged that order in the present writ petition and sought her selection and appointment as the PDS dealer.

Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the District Collector’s order dated 16 July 2022 should be entertained directly under Article 226 of the Constitution despite the availability of an alternative remedy before the Divisional Commissioner.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to selection and appointment as the PDS dealer on the grounds that she possessed higher educational qualifications, had secured 60.3% marks in Intermediate, and belonged to a minority community.

The Court applied the principle that the existence of an alternative and effective statutory or administrative remedy is a relevant ground for declining to adjudicate a writ petition on merits under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly where the designated appellate authority is competent to examine the dispute.

The Court identified the Divisional Commissioner as the competent authority to consider a complaint against the District Collector-cum-Chairman’s order.

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

Although the petitioner alleged that her superior educational qualifications and personal circumstances entitled her to selection, and contended that the District Collector had mechanically rejected her appeal, the Court did not examine the merits of the selection dispute.

It accepted the respondents’ submission that the petitioner had an alternative and effective remedy before the Divisional Commissioner.

Applying the exhaustion-of-remedies principle, the Court considered it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pursue that remedy rather than determine the legality of the District Collector’s order in the writ proceedings.

The Court nevertheless ensured procedural fairness by directing the Divisional Commissioner to hear both the petitioner and respondent No. 6 and decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law.

The petitioner was directed to file a complaint before the Divisional Commissioner against the District Collector’s order dated 16 July 2022 within one month from receiving the judgment.

The Divisional Commissioner was directed to provide a fair hearing to the petitioner and respondent No. 6 and decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law within three months thereafter.

The writ petition and any pending interlocutory applications were accordingly disposed of.