Judgment : 1. The Sub-Divisional Controller (Food & Supplies, Purulia) issued an advertisement dated August 19, 2010, inviting applications for appointment of M.R. Dealer at Ambarish Pally, Ward No. 18 under Purulia Municipality. Number of applicants offered their candidature; however, the District Controller (Food & Supplies), Purulia recommended the candidature of the petitioner while rejecting the candidature of the others. 2. Since the selection process was not being concluded, the petitioner approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction. The writ petition filed by him was disposed of on March 13, 2013 by a learned judge with a direction upon the respondents to conclude the process within 8 weeks, if the same has already not been concluded. Acting in compliance with such order, the Director, District Distribution Procurement and Supply considered the matter of selection upon hearing the parties and passed an order dated July 23, 2013, which is impugned in this writ petition. For reasons mentioned therein, the Director declined to accept the candidature of the petitioner and directed the Sub-Divisional Controller to take necessary action for re-notifying the vacancy. 3. Mr. Lahiri, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the Director exceeded his jurisdiction while passing the order dated July 23, 2013. According to him, in terms of clause 19 (ii) of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order 2003, the Director has the power to order a re-enquiry should there be a difference of opinion between the Sub-Divisional Controller and the District Controller. Despite the District Controller and the Sub-Divisional Controller being ad idem in regard to the candidature of the petitioner, a reenquiry was ordered and based on such report of re-enquiry the Director cancelled the candidature of the petitioner. Such course of action, he contended, is clearly not permissible in law and, therefore, a prayer was made for quashing of the impugned order and for further order on the respondents to appoint the petitioner as M.R. Dealer. 4. In course of further hearing, while replying to a query of the Court, Mr. Lahiri referred to the provisions of clause 19(ii) of the Control Order, as originally framed as well as the amendment thereto introduced with effect from March 28, 2005. He also referred to clause 23, as originally framed and as amended, to show the distinction in respect of exercise of power by the Director while appointing a dealer and a distributor. Lahiri referred to the provisions of clause 19(ii) of the Control Order, as originally framed as well as the amendment thereto introduced with effect from March 28, 2005. He also referred to clause 23, as originally framed and as amended, to show the distinction in respect of exercise of power by the Director while appointing a dealer and a distributor. According to him, insofar as appointment of a distributor is concerned, the Director has been given the power to order a reenquiry irrespective of whether the Sub- Divisional Controller and the District Controller are ad idem or not and since both the amendments in clause 19 and clause 23 were introduced on the same day and by a common notification, the intent of the framers of the Control Order is clear, i.e. the power of re-enquiry was restricted only for the purpose of appointment of a distributor and that such power could not have been exercised insofar as appointment of a dealer is concerned. The omission in clause 19, it was submitted, could not be filled up by interpretation and in support of such submission, Mr. Lahiri placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1952 SC 362 (Sm. Hira Devi and ors. V. District Board, Shahjahanpur) and AIR 1989 SC 501 (Petron Engineering Construction Pvt. Ltd. and anr. V. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors.). 5. I am afraid, I am not in a position to agree with Mr. Lahiri. In terms of clause 19 of the Control Order, as amended, the Sub-Divisional Controller or the District Controller, as the case may be, can notify a new vacancy only after a direction to this effect is received from the Directorate. If the contention urged by Mr. Lahiri were accepted, the Directorate would only be a post-office for the purpose of receiving the recommendation of the District Controller approving the recommendation of the Sub- Divisional Controller and then transmitting such recommendation to the State Government for approval. It does not sound logic that when filling up of vacancy has to be preceded by a direction of the Director to notify the vacancy, the Director would only act as a post-office while the process of filling up such vacancy is under process. It does not sound logic that when filling up of vacancy has to be preceded by a direction of the Director to notify the vacancy, the Director would only act as a post-office while the process of filling up such vacancy is under process. In terms of clause 19 (ii), a difference of opinion between the Sub-Divisional Controller and the District Controller may result in a re-enquiry being directed by the Director by any competent officer or by a team, which could be any officer or team of officers other than the Sub-Divisional Controller or the District Controller. Since notification of vacancy sets the ball in motion for inviting applications from interested applicants and such notification could be issued only upon the direction of the Director, it ought to be held that the Director has to play an active role in the entire process of selection leading to placement of the entire records together with the recommendation in favour of the first empanelled candidate before the State Government. 6. In the present case, it does not appear that the Director deputed an officer other than the Sub- Divisional Controller or the District Controller to conduct re-enquiry. The order impugned is clearly suggestive of the fact that the Sub- Divisional Controller was called upon to look into a particular point of discrepancy that the Director had pointed out and a clarification was obtained from him. The nature of clarification received from the Sub-Divisional Controller does not amount to a finding being given on the basis of a re-enquiry. 7. In view of the peculiar facts here, the decisions cited by Mr. Lahiri are of no assistance to the petitioner. 8. I do not see reason to hold that the Director exceeded his jurisdiction in seeking the clarification from the Sub-Divisional Controller. However, I am of the view that the Director instead of rejecting the candidature of the petitioner ought to have transmitted the file to the Secretary of the concerned department with his views for such Secretary to take the final decision as to whether the selection ought to be upheld or not. 9. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of with a direction upon the Director to forthwith place the entire file together with his views on the candidature of the petitioner before the Secretary for a final decision. The Secretary is given 45 days time to act. 9. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of with a direction upon the Director to forthwith place the entire file together with his views on the candidature of the petitioner before the Secretary for a final decision. The Secretary is given 45 days time to act. Any action taken in terms of the impugned order of the Director shall be subject to and abide by the decision of the Secretary to be given in terms of this order.