JUDGMENT

The petitioner has challenged the license issued by the District Supply Officer to the 4th respondent to function as the Authorised Ration Dealer (ARD) of Ration shop ARD No.158 of the Muthalamada Grama Panchayat. Applications were called for the appointment of dealer as can be seen from Exhibit P1 news report dated 19.6.2016. Exhibit P2 is a communication dated 20.2.2017 from the Taluk Supply Officer to the District Supply Officer, Palakkad, wherein it is stated that out of the 5 applications received, the applications submitted by the petitioner and the 4th respondent can be considered and that the other applicants are not eligible. Thereafter, as per Exhibit P3 proceedings dated 15.3.2017, the 3rd respondent considered the applications and ordered appointing the 4th respondent as the dealer. Even though the petitioner and the 4th respondent were found eligible, the 3rd respondent granted preference to the 4th respondent for the reason that she was unemployed and the younger person among the two.

2. The petitioner challenged Exhibit P3 before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, by Exhibit P4 proceedings dated 24.11.2017, rejected the appeal. The main contention raised