JUDGMENT :

LA. No. 1 of 2020.

1. This interlocutory application has been preferred seeking amendment of pleadings and reliefs in the writ application. It is stated that during the pendency of this writ application the respondents have come out with Advertisement No. 1 of 2019-20 issued under the signature of the District Magistrate, Aurangabad. A copy of the same has been brought on record as Annexure 18'.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the advertisement has been issued during the pendency of the writ application, the prayer made by the petitioner to allow him to amend the writ application is fit to be accepted.

3. In paragraph 3' of the said application it is stated that the impugned order in this writ application has been passed by Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya but inadvertently the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya has not been made party respondent in the writ application and as such petitioner may be permitted to add him as party respondent in the writ application.

4. Prayer made in the interlocutory application are formal in nature and in the opinion of this Court, the interlocutory application may be allowed.

5. Let the amendment be incorporated in the writ application. The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya be added at party respondent no. 10. Mr. Alok Ranjan, learned AC to AAG-5 accepts notice on behalf of the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya (respondent no. 10).

6. With the consent of the parties, the writ application has been heard for purpose of final consideration.

7. Petitioner in the present case has challenged the letter no. 726 dated 28.08.2019 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya as contained in Annexure 1' to the writ application. Further, challenges have been thrown to the directions as contained in Letter No. 4410 dated 18.09.2019 issued under the signature of the Secretary, Food & Consumer Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar who directed for initiation of fresh selection process for appointment of P.D.S. dealers. Petitioner has also challenged the report dated 08.07.2019 submitted by the Inquiry Committee consisting of Deputy Development Commissioner, Nawada, Deputy Development Commissioner, Jehanabad, and Additional Collector, Arwal which is enclosed as part of Annexure 1'.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected for grant of license of Public Distribution Shop (P.D.S.) vide memo no. 198 dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure 15 to the writ application). She has also deposited the required amount through challan on 08.03.2019 copy of which is enclosed as Annexure 16'.

9. Learned counsel submits that as it appears now one Ravi Ranjan Kumar Pandey who was also a candidate challenged the selection of the petitioner on the ground that she is an accused in a criminal case. This is evident from the tabular chart of the committee constituted for the purpose of conducting an enquiry in the matter of selection of P.D.S. dealers in the district of Aurangabad. The name of the complainant appears at serial number 5 and the remarks in front of him shows the nature of complaint.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier some aggrieved candidates had complained that there has been a large scale bugglings in the matter of selection of P.D.S. dealers in the district of Aurangabad. While the complaints were still pending with the Divisional Commissioner, some of the aggrieved persons moved this Court in CWJC No. 7646 of 2019. During the pendency of the said writ application, the Divisional Commissioner, Gaya issued Memo No. 354 dated 11.03.2019 by which a committee of three members were constituted to look into the grievances of the several persons against the selection process. When this Court was informed about the issuance of Memo No. 354 dated 11.03.2019 by the Divisional Commissioner, Gaya, this Court observed that because enquiry committee has already been constituted, this Co