Eligibility criteria outlined in the Vacancy Notification govern the selection process, with non-compliance resulting in rejection of applications. Principles of natural justice do not override established criteria nor grant locus standi to unsuccessful candidates in selection procedures.

JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the dismissal of a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging an order passed by the Principal Secretary, Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal whereby the latter disposed of the representation of the appellant by holding that the appellant is ineligible for grant of license in respect of a FPS shop-cum-godown.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a Vacancy Notification (VN) was issued by the respondent-authorities on September 1, 2023, inviting applications for grant of license against the vacancy of Fair Price Shop (Ration Shop) hereinafter refer to as “FPS.” Both the appellant and private respondent participated. The appellant's application was rejected as ineligible whereas the private respondent's application was allowed.

3. Challenging the same, the appellant gave a representation to the Principal Secretary, against the non-consideration of which the appellant moved a writ petition bearing W.P.A No.22897 of 2024. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated October 8, 2024, directing the Principal Secretary to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order after hearing the parties within eight weeks from the date of passing of the order. The decision was to be intimated to the petitioner (the present appellant) within two weeks thereafter. The Principal Secretary, in pursuance of the said order, decided the representation vide order dated January 24, 2025, thereby reiterating that the appellant was not eligible, giving reasons therein, which was the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition bearing no. W.P.A No.2552 of 2025.

4. Such challenge having been turned down, the present appeal has been preferred.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant argues that the private respondent's application ought to have been rejected on the ground of ineligibility, since the land offered for the godown by the private respondent is described as “banshbagan” (bamboo grove). The land was subsequently converted which, according to the appellant, could not have entitled the private respondent to be selected as eligible, since at the time of the private respondent's application, the land remained under the category of banshbagan in the Records of Rights.

6. Learned senior counsel further submits that the appellant and many other applicants were awarded zero marks despite meeting the eligibility criteria, whereas the private respondent was given a high score, which itself reveals bias and mala fides on the part of the respondent-Authorities. Alleging bias,