Sangita Kumari vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 952 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7943 of 2022
     ======================================================

Sangita Kumari Wife of Vidyanand Singh Resident of Village- Gangeli, P.S.- K. Nagar (Maranga), District- Purnea.

... ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Department of Food and consumer protection, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Divisional Commissioner Purnea.

3. The Collector Purnea.

4. The Sub- Divisional Officer Sadar, Purnea.

5. The District Supply Officer Purnea.

6. The Block Supply Officer K. Nagar Block, District- Purnea.

7. Ruby Kumari Wife of Kailash Yadav Resident of Village- Naya Tola, Gangeli, P.S.- K. Nagar (Maranga), District- Purnea.

... ... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rounak Kumar Singh 'Pankaj', Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Bimal Kumar Mr. Sunil Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anisul Haque, AC to AAG-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 13-03-2023

1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition

challenges the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner,

Purnea dated 16.03.2022 whereby the appeal preferred by Ruby

Kumari, respondent no. 7 was allowed and the PDS Shop

allotted to the petitioner under the Bihar Targeted Public

Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 was cancelled.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

order passed by the Divisional Commissioner is without Patna High Court CWJC No.7943 of 2022 dt.13-03-2023

application of mind. The qualifications relating to someone else

have been mentioned in the order while the petitioner possesses

the requisite qualification for allotment and was placed at merit

no. 1 in the select list for the allotment of the shop.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken

the court to the letter sent by the Divisional Supply Officer,

Purnea with regard to the P.D.S. Appeal No.28/2019 (Ruby

Kumari vs. Sangita Kumari) wherein he has stated about the

petitioner being at no. 1 in merit and also of the fact that the

petitioner could not file her certificate relating to computer

knowledge with her original application form but the same was

filed at the stage of receiving objections and was accepted by

the selection committee and she was allotted the PDS Shop.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

appeal has wrongly been allowed by the Divisional

Commissioner.

5. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent -

Ruby Kumari submits that the petitioner had not mentioned

about her computer knowledge at the time of filing of her

application and, therefore, her application form was liable to be

rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he Patna High Court CWJC No.7943 of 2022 dt.13-03-2023

has received the documents under the Right to Information Act

which shows that the application form taking on record

certificate was not accepted by the authorities and it is wrong to

state that her certificate was accepted subsequently by the

Selection Committee. He further submits that the order passed

by the Commissioner may have some typographical errors but

the same would not deprive the respondent from her rightful

claim for allotment.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the State has stated

that both the orders issued by the Divisional Supply Officer as

well as by the Divisional Commissioner are contrary to each

other but the stand taken by the State is that the petitioner had

not filed her computer knowledge certificate at the time of filing

of the application and, therefore, he supports the order passed by

the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea.

8. I have considered the submissions. This Court

while examining writ petition Article 227 of the Constitution of

India would not sit in appeal and would only examine the

decision making process and my perversity and not the decision

itself.

9. The Divisional Commissioner was required to

decide the case after considering all the aspects. From perusal of Patna High Court CWJC No.7943 of 2022 dt.13-03-2023

the order, it is apparent that while in one para he mentions about

the petitioner possessing qualification of computer knowledge,

in another para, he proceeds to decide the issue holding the

petitioner not having qualification of computer. He also

proceeds to treat her qualification differently as that of Maulvi.

It is a case of complete non-application of mind and cannot be

said to be merely typographical error. In the circumstances, the

order passed by the Divisional Commissioner cannot be

sustained and the same is, accordingly, liable to be set aside.

10. However, the issue would remain still alive as to

who should be allotted the concerned PDS Shop. A look at the

order passed by the Divisional Supply Officer reflects that the

petitioner's computer qualification was accepted later on for the

purpose of considering her candidature for allotment of the PDS

Shop. In other aspects, she is more meritorious than the

respondent. The conditions of applying for PDS shop required

person to mention the qualifications in the application form

itself. Since she did not mention the computer qualification at

the time of applying, she moved another application on

26.07.2018 providing the said document. In the opinion of this

Court, the delay in submitting of these certificates would not

deprive her of her claim to compete for PDS Shop and Patna High Court CWJC No.7943 of 2022 dt.13-03-2023

accordingly, I hold that she being more meritorious was rightly

allotted the said shop. The order of cancelling her allotment

passed by the Commissioner has been found to be not

sustainable in law and accordingly, the order dated 16.03.2022

is quashed and her allotment stands restored. The authorities

shall proceed accordingly.

11. Writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. No

cost.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Gauravkr/-

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date