AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 17-08-2026
The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:
“a)Issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner for grant of PDS Shop in view of his higher age as compared to the respondent No 7.
b)To stay the selection process of grant of PDS License in the Block Barsoi, Katihar, till the pendency of the writ application.c) To set aside the final selection list of selected PDS dealer so far as it related to selection of respondent No 7."
The brief facts culled out of the Writ petition are that an advertisement was published for allotment of a Public Distribution Shop in the district of Katihar. The petitioner and respondent No. 7 applied for the said shop. Both have passed matriculation and possess the same computer qualification, namely an Advance Diploma in Computers. The petitioner is, however, older than respondent No. 7.
The petitioner's candidature was rejected at the stage of scrutiny on the ground that he had obtained lesser marks. The petitioner contends that the applicable rules do not provide for preference on the basis of marks, obtained in Intermediate. Under the relevant provision, where candidates have equal computer qualification, preference is to be given to the candidate who is older in age. Despite this, respondent No. 7 was selected for allotment of the PDS shop.
The Learned Senior counsel Mr. N.K.Agrawal appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No. 7 possess the same computer qualifications, whereas the petitioner is admittedly older in age. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been given preference under the applicable rules. It is further submitted that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature on the ground of lesser marks obtained in Intermediate is contrary to the prescribed criteria.
The Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the selection of respondent No. 7 is contrary to the applicable rules and prayed to quash the impugned selection and for consideration of the petitioner's candidature in accordance with law.
At this juncture, the Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed in CWJC No. 7786 of 2022 (Virendra Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 509 of 2023 (Munna Kumar Ram Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.).
In Virendra Kumar Singh (supra) this Court has held as follows:
"4.I have considered the respective submissions. Rule 9 (v) proviso of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order 2016 reads as under:-
“9.(v) The applicant of a fair price shop’s license must be matric pass and an adult:
Provided that the applicant having computer knowledge shall be given priority. In case of equality in computer knowledge, the applicant having highest qualification and in case of equality in highest qualification also the applicant of older age shall be given priority.”
5.In the provisional merit list prepared by the Respondents for allotment of the shop, the name of the Respondent No. 9 was placed at No. 1 and he was shown to be recommended for the purpose of allotment of the shop. It is to be noticed that the concerned shop was unreserved. The Respondent No. 9 had applied as an unreserved category candidate while the petitioner applied under the EBC Category.
In the educational qualifications column, the Respondent No. 9 is shown to possess Diploma in Computer Application (D.C.A.) and Post Graduate while the petitioner is shown to possess the qualification of B.Sc. (IT). The question which was required to be examined by the Secretary was who is to be treated as more meritorious. However, he has failed to examine the issue and proceeded on an assumption that the Respondent No. 9 (appellant before him) was placed at No. 1 in the merit list although the merit list was provisional.
6.Upon plain reading of the proviso to Rule 9 (v), it is apparent that an applicant having computer knowledge has to be given priority and if there is equality in computer knowledge, then the applicant having highest qualification would be considered and if all the applicants have equal highest qualification then their age would be a factor for the purpose of grant of the license for PDS shop. The seriatim has to be followed. In other words, the first aspect which is to be examined is knowledge of Computer and if they are equal then the second aspect shall be examined. In the present case, it is noticed that while the Respondent No. 9 possesses a Diploma in Computer Application, the petitioner possesses qualification of B.Sc. (IT) which is a higher qualification in computer knowledge. In view thereto, the question of examining the other highest qualification would not arise, and it is at that stage only that the petitioner marches over the Respondent.
The said aspect having not been considered by the Secretary vitiates the order passed by him dated 12.04.2022. The petitioner therefore is found to have been rightly treated as higher meritorious while issuing the license for PDS shop by the District Supplier Officer’s order dated 31.08.2020 and there was no occasion to set aside the said order with respect to the petitioner by the Secretary. The order passed by the Secretary therefore suffers from perversity and cannot be sustained in law.
7.Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The order passed by the Secretary dated 12.04.2022 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled for the grant of license of PDS shop in terms of the order passed by the District Supplier Officer dated 31.08.2020 for the region as mentioned there."
A Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 6. The Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was not eligible to apply for or hold a Fair Price Shop dealership, as he was admittedly a Ward Member during the relevant period. Under Clause 11(ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, a Ward Member is disqualified from allotment of a Fair Price Shop dealership during his tenure. The checklist forwarded by the SDM, Barsoi, to the District Selection Committee also specifically recorded the petitioner’s status as a Ward Member.
It is further submitted that, apart from the aforesaid disqualification, the petitioner and the selected candidate possessed the same educational qualification, namely Intermediate, and both were shown to be computer literate. The selected candidate fulfilled all the prescribed qualifications on the date of advertisement and had obtained higher marks. Therefore, in terms of Clause 9(v) of the Control Order, 2016, the Selection Committee rightly preferred the selected candidate over the petitioner.
The Learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, submits that the petitioner’s challenge to the selection is devoid of merit, as the petitioner was disqualified under Clause 11(ii) of the Control Order, 2016, irrespective of his claim regarding the comparative merit of the candidates.
Having considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record, this Court finds that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in Virendra Kumar Singh (supra), which has also been affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 509 of 2023.
In the aforesaid judgment, this Court interpreted the proviso to Clause 9(v) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and held that the prescribed criteria are to be considered sequentially. Priority is first to be given on the basis of computer knowledge; in case of equality in computer qualification, the higher qualification is to be considered and, only in case where the candidates are equal in their highest qualification, preference is to be given to the candidate who is older in age.
In the present case also, the petitioner claims parity with the selected respondent in respect of computer qualification and asserts that he is older in age. The respondents, however, rejected his candidature by taking into consideration the marks obtained in Intermediate. In view of the law laid down in Virendra Kumar Singh (supra), the selection authority was required to apply the criteria prescribed under Clause 9(v) in the stipulated sequence and could not proceed on any other basis for selection.
The objection raised by the respondents regarding the petitioner being a Ward Member under Clause 11(ii) of the Control Order, 2016 has also been considered. Since the controversy involved in the present case is covered by the aforesaid binding judgment, the impugned selection cannot be sustained on the basis of the criteria adopted by the respondents.
Accordingly, the impugned selection of respondent No. 7, so far as it relates to the PDS shop in question, is quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner and the other eligible candidates strictly in accordance with the criteria prescribed under Clause 9(v) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and in the light of the judgment passed in Virendra Kumar Singh (supra).
The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.