Supreme Court Upholds State’s Decision to Cancel Fair Price Shop Vacancies: State of West Bengal vs. Gitashree Dutta (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 20, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 410

Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J. and Vikram Nath, J.

Can a state government cancel announced vacancies for Fair Price Shops (FPS) after initiating the selection process, citing the implementation of a new food security law? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning the State of West Bengal. The core issue revolved around whether the state was justified in cancelling the declared FPS vacancies due to the implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013. This judgment clarifies the interplay between legitimate expectations of candidates and the state’s duty to implement statutory reforms. The bench comprised Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath, with the judgment authored by Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.

Case Background

On January 30, 2014, the State of West Bengal issued a gazette notification declaring vacancies for Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealerships in the Alipurduar district. Gitashree Dutta (Dey), the respondent, participated in the selection process and was recommended as the first priority candidate. However, the state did not issue a final appointment order. While her application was pending, the Food and Supplies Department of West Bengal issued a notification on August 17, 2015, cancelling all previously declared FPS vacancies. This cancellation was attributed to the implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013. Aggrieved by this cancellation, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Calcutta, seeking to quash the cancellation notification. The State of West Bengal contested this petition, which was initially dismissed by a single judge. However, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court overturned the single judge’s decision, leading the State to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent initially filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Calcutta, challenging the notification dated August 17, 2015, which cancelled the declared FPS vacancies. The single judge dismissed the writ petition. Subsequently, the respondent appealed to the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench heard this appeal along with three other similar matters and, on March 6, 2019, ruled in favor of the respondents, quashing the cancellation notification. The Division Bench held that the State of West Bengal had failed to justify the recall of vacancies and had acted arbitrarily and unreasonably. The State of West Bengal then appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision of the Division Bench.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• National Food Security Act, 2013: The court examined the purpose and provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013 (referred to as ‘2013 Act’ in the judgment), which aims to provide food and nutritional security by ensuring access to adequate quantities of quality food at affordable prices. The Act mandates reforms in the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS).
  • Section 3 of the 2013 Act provides for the right to receive food grains at subsidized prices.
  • Section 4 provides for nutritional support to pregnant women and lactating mothers.
  • Section 5 provides for nutritional support to children.
  • Section 6 provides for prevention and management of child malnutrition.
  • Section 12 of the 2013 Act mandates that the Central and State Governments shall endeavor to progressively undertake necessary reforms in the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) in consonance with the role envisaged for them in this Act. Specifically, Section 12(2)(e) allows the state to give preference to public institutions or bodies like Panchayats, self-help groups, and cooperatives in licensing fair price shops.
• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: The court also touched upon the interplay between the doctrine of legitimate expectation and Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants (State of West Bengal)

• The State argued that the notification dated 17.08.2015, cancelling the FPS vacancies, was issued in public interest due to the implementation of the 2013 Act.

• They contended that the respondent’s plea of legitimate expectation was baseless, as there is no estoppel against a statute.

• The State argued that the implementation of the 2013 Act led to a reduction in the number of beneficiaries after mapping ration card holders, making it unviable to proceed with filling the notified vacancies.

• The selection process initiated by the notification dated 30.01.2014, did not vest the respondent with any justiciable right to claim appointment.

Arguments of the Respondent (Gitashree Dutta)

• The respondent argued that she participated in the selection process and was successful, thus creating a legitimate expectation of appointment.

• She contended that she altered her position to her prejudice based on the state’s notification.

• The respondent submitted that the 2013 Act was in force before the vacancy notification of 30.01.2014, implying that the authorities had already considered the Act’s parameters while declaring the vacancies.

• She argued that the authorities could not resile from their declared position.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the State of West Bengal was justified in cancelling the declaration of FPS vacancies in view of the implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. [1999 (4) SCC 727]* to emphasize that policy decisions can be changed in overriding public interest.
• The Court cited Sethi Auto Service Station and Another v. Delhi Development Authority and Others [(2009) 1 SCC 180]* to explain that legitimate expectation arises from representation or past conduct but is subject to public interest.
• The Court referred to Union of India v. Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary [2016 (4) SCC 236]* to reiterate that legitimate expectation cannot prevail over a policy that is not perverse or unreasonable.
• The Court used Food Corporation of India v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries [(1993) 1 SCC 71]* to support that legitimate expectation is a relevant factor but is subservient to public interest.
• The Court followed Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India & Ors. [(2018) 12 SCC 170]* to highlight that the 2013 Act is a social welfare legislation, and its provisions are mandatory.
• The Court cited Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikreta Sangh v. State of M.P. [(1981) 4 SCC 471]* to emphasize that no person has a right to run a fair price shop, only a right to be considered for appointment.
• The Court relied on Thakur Amar Singhji v. State of Rajasthan [(1955) 2 SCR 303]* and Electronics Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Govt. of A.P. [(1999) 4 SCC 458]* to reiterate that there can be no estoppel against a statute.
• The Court used A.P. Dairy Development Corpn. Federation v. B Narasimha Reddy [(2011) 9 SCC 286]* to support that estoppel does not apply when actions are not in conformity with law.
• The Court cited A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu & ors. [(2001) 2 SCC 62]* to emphasize that promissory estoppel cannot be applied against a statute.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold the mandate of the National Food Security Act, 2013. The court emphasized that the Act is a social welfare legislation aimed at ensuring food security for all, and its implementation is of paramount importance. The court also highlighted that the State government has a responsibility to reform the existing public distribution system in accordance with the Act. The court held that the legitimate expectations of the respondent cannot override the public interest in implementing the Act. Additionally, the court reiterated the principle that there can be no estoppel against a statute, meaning that the State cannot be prevented from implementing the law even if it had previously made a different decision. The Court also noted that the respondent had no vested right to appointment as the selection process was not finalized.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by legal principles and the mandate of the 2013 Act, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the alternative interpretation that the State was aware of the 2013 Act when it issued the vacancy notification on 30.01.2014. However, the court rejected this interpretation, stating that there was no evidence to suggest that the provisions of the 2013 Act were kept in mind while issuing the vacancy notice. The court emphasized that the vacancy notice did not refer to the provisions of the 2013 Act. The final decision was reached by prioritizing the implementation of the 2013 Act and upholding the principle that there can be no estoppel against a statute.

The Supreme Court decided that the State was justified in cancelling the FPS vacancies. The court reasoned that the cancellation was necessary to implement the National Food Security Act, 2013, which is a social welfare legislation. The court also held that the respondent had no vested right to appointment, and that the doctrine of legitimate expectation could not override the public interest in implementing the statute.

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

• The 2013 Act is a social welfare legislation aimed at ensuring food security.
• The State has a responsibility to reform the public distribution system as per the Act.
• There can be no estoppel against a statute.
• The respondent had no vested right to appointment.
• The legitimate expectation of the respondent cannot override the public interest in implementing the statute.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “In view of the implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013 in the State, the Governor is pleased to cancel with immediate effect the FPS vacancies…”
• “The doctrine of legitimate expectation ordinarily would not have any application when the legislature has enacted the statute.”
• “No one could claim a right to run a fair price shop as an agent of the Government. All that he could claim was a right to be considered to be appointment to run a fair price shop.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench comprised two judges, both of whom concurred with the judgment.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning focused on the interpretation and application of the National Food Security Act, 2013, and the principle that there can be no estoppel against a statute. The court applied these legal principles to the facts of the case, concluding that the State was justified in cancelling the FPS vacancies to implement the Act.

The potential implications for future cases are that the judgment reinforces the principle that the implementation of social welfare legislation takes precedence over individual expectations. It also clarifies that mere participation in a selection process does not guarantee appointment, and that the State has the power to change its policies in the public interest, especially when implementing statutory mandates.

The Supreme Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. It reaffirmed the existing principles of legitimate expectation, estoppel against a statute, and the State’s duty to implement statutory mandates. The court clarified that while legitimate expectation is a relevant factor, it is subservient to public interest and statutory requirements.

Key Takeaways

• The State can cancel declared vacancies for Fair Price Shops if it is necessary for implementing the National Food Security Act, 2013.
• There is no estoppel against a statute, meaning the State cannot be prevented from implementing a law even if it had made a different decision earlier.
• Mere participation in a selection process does not guarantee appointment.
• The legitimate expectation of a candidate cannot override the public interest in implementing social welfare legislation.
• The State has the power to change its policies in the public interest, especially when implementing statutory mandates.

The judgment is likely to impact future cases by reinforcing the principle that the implementation of social welfare legislation is paramount. It also clarifies the limitations of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in the context of statutory obligations.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the parties to bear their respective costs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State is justified in cancelling declared vacancies for Fair Price Shops if it is necessary to implement the National Food Security Act, 2013. This judgment reinforces that the implementation of social welfare legislation takes precedence over individual expectations and that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot override statutory obligations. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but a reiteration of the existing principles.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of West Bengal, setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The Supreme Court held that the State was justified in cancelling the declared FPS vacancies to implement the National Food Security Act, 2013. The court emphasized that the Act is a social welfare legislation, and its implementation is of paramount importance. The court also reiterated that there can be no estoppel against a statute and that the legitimate expectations of candidates cannot override the public interest in implementing statutory mandates.