G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J.—Heard the Learned senior counsel Mr. N.K. Agrawal for the petitioner, the Learned counsel Mr. Kaushalesh Choudhary for the respondent no. 7 and the Learned counsel Mr. Arvind Ujjwal for the State.

2. The writ petition is filed for quashing the Minutes dated 01.09.2017 for which the private respondent no. 7, namely, Madhuri Kumari was granted Public Distribution System dealership of Panchayat-Masankhan, Sub-Division Biraul as respondent authorities had wrongly appointed/granted PDS license to the respondent no. 7, despite the District Selection Committee had recommended the name of the petitioner vide meeting dated 05.08.2007 and further prays to direct the respondent authorities to appoint/grant Public Distribution System license to the petitioner for the Panchayat Masankhan as she was already recommended by the District Selection Committee, Darbhanga.

3. The brief facts culled out of the petition are that the petitioner is an unemployed lady who have passed Intermediate in 1st Division and also possesses DCA qualification in Computers. Further, as per the certificate dated 21.06.2017 issued by the Circle Officer, Kusheshwarsthan, the petitioner is the resident of village Bhadaul of Darbhanga District. Respondent Authorities published advertisement for Selection/grant of PDS license to the eligible persons. As per the said advertisement, the petitioner has fulfilled the eligibility criteria for grant of PDS Licence. The Respondent Authorities accepted the application of the petitioner along with other persons and the District Selection Committee has considered the application of the petitioner along with the other persons in the meeting dated 05.08.2017 against the unreserved seat for women. Further, the District Selection committee has recommended the name of the petitioner for grant of PDS license for the Block Biraul. The Minutes of the meeting is Annexure 2. In spite of the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, the respondent authorities have not granted Public Distribution System license to her and in contrary, it granted PDS license to Respondent No. 7 vide meeting dated 01.09.2017. The action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal and violative of law, therefore, prayed to quash the Minutes of the meeting dated 01.09.2017 and further to direct the respondent authorities to select the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, a detailed counter affidavit was filed by the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. In the counter affidavit, the allegations of the petitioner are totally denied. It is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as there is a specific provision laid in Clause 32(vii) of (Control) Order, 2016, according to which the petitioner has to file his objection before the concerned department and without filing the objections, the Writ petition cannot be entertained. It is further contended that the petitioner has to file a proper representation before the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division in accordance with the observations and directions of this Court by order dated 02.01.2023 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12504 of 2018.

5. It is further contended in the counter affidavit that pursuant to the advertisement/notice circulated in the locality of the District of Darbhanga for the year 2017, applications were received including the applications of the petitioner and Respondent No. 7 for one vacancy of one dealership reserved for woman. Pursuant to the applications, a merit list has been prepared and it was published on 05.08.2017 in order to get objections from any corner. The proceeding order dated 05.08.2017 connotes the name of the petitioner at serial no. 3 with remarks of having recommendation whereas name of the respondent no. 7 is at serial no. 6. Within the stipulated period certain objections were received and after entertaining the same the Selection Committee, Darbhanga has prepared and published the selection list on 01.09.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has pr