The court affirmed that employees with long tenure in a shop have preferential rights to appointment as licensees under applicable welfare legislation, despite changes in licensing status.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

1. The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P5 and P10 notifications and for a declaration that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to be appointed as a licensee in ARD No.1733127 of Palluruthy Village in Kochi Corporation.

2. The petitioner submits that she is employed as a saleswoman in the Fair Price Shops(FPS), formerly known as Authorised Retail Distributor(ARD), in ARD No.1733127 of Ward No.18 of Palluruthy Village of Kochi Corporation from 2018 onwards. Later, the said ARD was attached to ARD No. 641, and the petitioner is still continuing as the saleswoman in ARD No. 1733127.

3. The Government of Kerala implemented the Kerala Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2021 [herein after referred to as ‘KTPDS order, 2021’], which came into force on 18.02.2021. Relying on Clause 37(5) of the KTPDS Order, 2021 it is submitted by the petitioner that if the fair price shop owner is incapable of running the ration business and his/her legal heirs are not willing to continue the ration business, or where there are no legal heirs, the Licensing Authority after verification of the medical certificate from a registered medical practitioner in this regard, consent letter and notary attested affidavit from the fair price shop owner and from the legal heirs, certificate issued by the Taluk Supply Officer with regard to the experience of the salesman in the particular fair price shop and after conducting necessary enquiry, may grant license provisionally to the existing salesman having 10 years of experience in the particular fair price shop. The said 10 years’ experience has been modified by the Government Order - G.O.(Rt.)No.439/2025/F&CS dated 22.12.2025, by reducing the experience to 6 years and therefore, the petitioner is perfectly eligible for the benefit under Clause 37(5) of the KTPDS Order, 2021. Based on the same, the petitioner would contend that since the licensee was not willing to run the shop as he had obtained a Government employment, necessarily, going by Clause 37(5), the petitioner, who is the saleswoman in the said ARD, ought to have been appointed as a licensee. Instead, Exts.P5 and P10 notifications were issued for a fresh selection for ARD No.1733127 of Palluruthy Village, and the same has been earmarked for PWD categories. The petitioner would contend that the entitlement of the petitioner as a saleswoman for getting a license is to be examined first, and only thereafter, that the notification for appointment as licensee for the above said ARD could be issued by the Government.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that it is true that the petitioner has a preference, but going by Clause 37(7) of the KTPDS Order, 2021, the provisions of sub clause (1) to (6) shall apply only to Authorized Retail Distributors existing under the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, on the date of coming into force of the KTPDS Order, 2021 and shall not be available to fresh licences issued after the coming into force of the Order. On the basis of the same, it is the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that as on the date of coming into force of the KTPDS Order, 2021, the licence in question was not existing, since the owner has already surrendered the licence and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim shelter under Clause 37(5) of the KTPDS Order, 2021 for getting a preference. The learned Special Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that though Exts.P5 and P10 notifications were issued inviting applications from candidates belonging to PWD categories, no applications were received from any eligible candidates. It is further submitted that the Government proposes to issue a fre