A repeal of a Control Order extinguishes existing rights to selection processes under it, establishing that vested rights only arise upon completion of licensing.

1. The point which primarily falls for determination in this batch of writ petitions is the question as to whether a process of selection initiated under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 but not completed can survive and be guided by the said Control Order, subsequent to the promulgation of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013. Both these Control Orders have been made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 . The writ petitioners are all applicants for licences for running fair price shops, within the meaning of clause 2(l) of the 2013 Control Order. Under the 2003 Control Order, the operating clause was 2(h). In these kinds of shops, various commodities through the public distribution system are made available to the holders of ration cards.

2. Prior to promulgation of the 2003 Control Order, the dealers used to be engaged on the basis of executive instructions. Their engagement process was brought under a statutory scheme under the 2003 Control Order. The Central Government in the year 2001 made the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 in exercise power conferred by S.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 . Clause 7 of the 2001 Control Order empowered the State Governments to issue an Order under S.3 of the 1955 Act for regulating the sale and distribution essential commodities and the said clause further provided that as per paragraph 5 of the Annexe to the 2001 Control Order, the licence to the fair price shop owners were to be issued in terms of Orders to be made by the State Government. Such Orders are to specify the duties and responsibilities of the fair price shop owners. The 2003 Control Order was made by the State Government in terms of the aforesaid provisions.

3. Provisions of the 2003 and 2013 Control Orders remain substantially the same, but on the aspect of engaging the dealers, clause 20(iii) of the latter Control Order provides that in case of fresh vacancies under the 2013 Control Order, preference is to be given to certain collective bodies, like self - help groups, specially women self - help groups. The vacancies involved in these writ petitions were declared when the 2003 Control Order was in operation. Within the administrative hierarchy involved in the selection process, the petitioners - applications appear to have had been favourably recommended. The ultimate decision to issue the licences, however, was withheld in each of these cases. The respondents have used affidavits in this batch of writ petitions in three matters, being WP No. 4646 (W) of 2014, WP No. 7064 (W) of 2014 and WP No. 10535 (W) of 2014. Mr. Sengupta appearing on behalf of the respondents has adopted these affidavits in connection with all the writ petitions. Main grievances of the petitioners in these proceedings is that though their selection process had reached an advanced stage under the 2003 Control Order, such vacancies were cancelled and fresh vacancies were declared under the 2013 Control Order, after the 2013 Control Order became operational on 8th August, 2013. The petitioners allege such cancellation and consequential initiation of fresh selection process by the respondents to be arbitrary. Such step, according to the petitioners, is not perm