Patna High Court
Ruby Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 5 August, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.526 of 2023
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7943 of 2022
======================================================
Ruby Kumari W/o Kailash Yadav, resident of village - Nayatola Gangeli, P.S.
- K.Nagar Maranga, District - Purnea.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the 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. Sangita Kumari, W/o Vidyanand Singh, resident of village - Gangeli, P.S. -
K.Nagar (Maranga), District - Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the Resp. no.1- 6 : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad (AAG-5)
Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate
For the Resp. no.7 : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Rajiv Kr. Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 05-08-2025
Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for
the appellant, Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, learned AAG-5 for the
respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned
counsel for the respondent No.7.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Clause-X,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.526 of 2023 dt.05-08-2025
2/16
Appendix-E of the Patna High Court Rules against the order
dated 13.03.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C
No. 7943 of 2022 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed
the writ petition filed by the present opponent no.7/original writ
petitioner.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is as under :-
3.1. The present opponent no.7/original writ petitioner
filed the captioned writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in which the petitioner had prayed for
quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.03.2022 passed by
the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea in Supply Appeal No. 28
of 2019 whereby the Public Distribution System dealership
license issued in favour of the petitioner came to be cancelled.
3.2. It is a case of the writ petitioner that she applied
for grant of fair price shop dealership licence for Gangeli Gram
Panchayat under Bihar Targetted Public Distribution System
(Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order of
2016'). It is further the case of the petitioner that the original
respondent no.7 and others also submitted their applications
before the competent authority.
3.3. It is also the case of the petitioner that thereafter
the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Purnea asked the Block
Patna High Court L.P.A No.526 of 2023 dt.05-08-2025
3/16
Supply Officer to submit an enquiry report relating to the
application submitted by the concerned candidates for grant of
the aforesaid licence. Pursuant to the same, the concerned
Block Supply Officer, Purnea submitted his report dated
25.09.2017
. In the said report, it has been stated by the said
officer that the petitioner and other candidates possess computer
knowledge which is essential for giving priority over others.
3.4. It is further case of the petitioner that on
26.07.2018, the application was submitted by the petitioner
before the District Supply Officer, Purnea along with the
computer certificate, Aadhar Card, Pan Card at the stage of
claim/objection. It was further stated in the said application that
she could not submit her computer certificate, Aadhar Card and
Pan Card along with her application for grant of fair price shop
dealership licence.
3.5. The petitioner has also stated that at the time of
consideration of the application submitted by all the
candidates/applicants, the Selection Committee considered the
application of the petitioner and thereafter in the meeting held
on 29.09.2018 under the Chairmanship of District Collector,
Purnea, it was decided to issue licence in favour of the
petitioner. Accordingly, the licence was issued in favour of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.526 of 2023 dt.05-08-2025
petitioner.
3.6. It has been further stated in the memo of the
petition that against the decision taken by the concerned
Selection Committee granting licence in favour of the petitioner,
the original respondent no.7/present appellant filed an appeal,
being Supply Appeal no.28 of 2019, before the Divisional
Commissioner, Purnea. It is the grievance of the petitioner that
the concerned Divisional Commissioner, Purnea vide order
dated 16.03.2022 allowed the appeal filed by the original
respondent no.7 and thereby the licence issued in favour of the
petitioner under the Order of 2016 came to be cancelled.
3.7. The petitioner, therefore, filed the captioned writ
petition before this Court. Learned Single Judge allowed the
said petition and thereby quashed and set aside the order dated
16.03.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea.
The original respondent no.7 has, therefore, preferred the
present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant herein has
assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge
mainly on the ground that the original petitioner is not entitled
for the grant of licence of fair price shop as she has submitted
the document i.e. the computer certificate subsequent to the cut-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.526 of 2023 dt.05-08-2025
off date i.e. the last date for submission of the application form.
Learned counsel referred the relevant documents, which are
annexed with the memo of the petition, and pointed out from the
record that it is an undisputed fact that while submitting the
application form, the petitioner did not mention about her
qualification in computer subject. Further, she did not annex the
relevant certificate with her application and, therefore, the
concerned Block Supply Officer submitted the report, copy of
which is placed on record at page no.81 of the compilation. It is
submitted that as per the said report, the petitioner did not
qualify for the grant of licence of fair price shop, despite which
subsequently, i.e. after submission of report on 25.09.2017 by
Block Supply Officer, the petitioner submitted an application on
26.07.2018 that she is having certificate of computer knowledge
and, therefore, the Selection Committee has committed an error
while accepting that certificate which was supplied after the cut-
off date and thereby wrongly granted licence in favour of the
petitioner. It is further submitted that the Divisional
Commissioner, Purnea has rightly allowed the appeal filed by
the present appellant, despite which the learned Single Judge
interfered with the said order passed by the concerned appellate
authority. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision
Patna High Court L.P.A No.526 of 2023 dt.05-08-2025
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok
Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2007) 4
SCC 54. Learned counsel has more particularly referred
paragraph no. 20 of the said decision. Learned counsel for the
appellant, therefore, urged that the impugned order passed by
the learned Single Judge be set aside and the order dated
16.03.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea,
which was in favour of the present appellant, be confirmed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
the present opponent no.7/original writ petitioner has
vehemently opposed the present appeal. Learned counsel
submits that it is true that the original petitioner has failed to
mention about her knowledge in computer and the certificate
obtained by her in computer, while submitting the application
form, however, the fact remains that the petitioner is having
knowledge of computer. She was holding that certificate and,
therefore, when the petitioner realised about the same, she has
submitted an application before the competent authority and
produced such certificate along with the Aadhar Card and Pan
Card. Learned counsel referred the copy of the said application
dated 26.07.2018, copy of which is placed on record at page
no.20 of the compilation. Learned counsel for the present
Patna High Court L.P.A No.526 of 2023 dt.05-08-2025
opponent no.7/original writ petitioner would further contend
that in the present case, the petitioner acquired the required
qualification prior to the date of advertisement and even prior to
the cut-off date. The only mistake which she committed was that
she could not mention about the same in the application form
and could not produce the same along with the application form.
However, subsequently, the same was submitted before the
competent authority and that too, prior to the meeting of the
Selection Committee which was held on 29.09.2018 under the
Chairmanship of District Collector. Learned counsel, therefore,
urged that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error
while allowing the petition preferred by the petitioner. At this
stage, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Charles
K. Skaria & Ors. vs. Dr. C. Mathew & Ors. reported in AIR
1980 Supreme Court 1230. Learned counsel also placed
reliance upon the recent decision rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sweety Kumari vs. State of
Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 2023 Supreme Court 4491.
Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the present appeal be
dismissed.
6. Learned AAG-5 appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.526 of 2023 dt.05-08-2025
respondent-authorities has also opposed the present appeal.
Learned AAG-5 would submit that it is open for the respondent-
authorities to accept the document while considering the
claim/objection. It is further submitted that in the present case,
the original petitioner submitted the relevant document prior to
the meeting of the Selection Committee. It is also contended
that in the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner
acquired the requisite qualification prior to the date of
publication of the advertisement in the newspaper and even
prior to the cut-off date and, therefore, the Selection Committee
has rightly considered the candidature of the original petitioner
and thereby granted licence of the fair price shop in favour of
the original petitioner. Learned AAG-5, therefore, urged that the
learned Single Judge has not committed any error while
allowing the petition. He also, therefore, requested that the
appeal be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for
the parties and having gone through the material placed on
record as well as the decisions upon which the reliance has been
placed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it
transpires that pursuant to the advertisement issued in the
newspaper for grant of fair price shop for a particular location,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.526 of 2023 dt.05-08-2025
the original writ petitioner as well as the present appellant along
with the other applicants submitted their applications. From the
record, it further transpires that the petitioner submitted the
application form in which she did not state about her certificate
in computer. Hence, she did not produce the said certificate of
computer knowledge along with her application form.
Therefore, the concerned Block Supply Officer while submitting
the report on 25.09.2017, observed that the petitioner did not
possess the requisite qualification of computer. It is further
revealed from the record that before the meeting of the Selection
Committee under the Chairmanship of District Magistrate was
held on 29.09.2018, the petitioner submitted an application on
26.07.2018, a copy of which is placed on record at page no.20,
wherein she has pointed out the correct facts that she could not
place the relevant certificate as well as the Aadhar Card and Pan
Card along with her application form, therefore, she submitted
all the three documents with the said application. It is also not in
dispute that the meeting of the Selection Committee was held on
29.09.2018. Thus, undisputedly, prior to the meeting of the
Selection Committee, the requisite document was supplied by
the petitioner before the competent authority and, therefore, the
concerned Selection Committee, at the time of considering the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.526 of 2023 dt.05-08-2025
application submitted by all the applicants, considered the
application of the original petitioner as well as the document,
i.e. certificate with regard to the computer, and thereafter
thought it fit to issue licence of fair price shop in favour of the
original petitioner.
8. It is required to be observed at this stage that it is
not the case of the present appellant/original respondent no.7
that the certificate obtained by the petitioner is a forged
document or a concocted document nor it is the case of the
present appellant that the original writ petitioner has acquired
the qualification after the cut-off date. Thus, the fact remains
that before the cut-off date, the petitioner was having the
requisite qualification, however, as observed herein above, the
mistake, which was committed by the petitioner, was that she
could not state about the said thing in the application form and
she could not annex the said document with the application
form. Thus, here is a case where the original petitioner has
acquired the requisite qualification prior to the cut-off date and
even prior to the meeting of the Selection Committee.
9. At this stage, we would like to refer the decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Charles
K. Skaria (supra), whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
Patna High Court L.P.A No.526 of 2023 dt.05-08-2025
held in paragraph nos. 20 and 21 as under :-
"20. There is nothing unreasonable nor arbitrary in
adding 10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to
earn this extra 10 marks, the diploma must be
obtained at least on or before the last date for
application, not later. Proof of having obtained a
diploma is different from the factum of having got
it. Has the candidate, in fact, secured a diploma
before the final date of application for admission to
the degree course? That is the primary question. It
is prudent to produce evidence of the diploma
along with the application, but that is secondary.
Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so
on the second. Academic excellence, through a
diploma for which extra mark is granted, cannot be
denuded because proof is produced only later, yet
before the date of actual selection. The emphasis is
on the diploma, the proof thereof subserves the
factum of possession of the diploma and is not an
independent factor. The prospectus does say :
(4)(b) : 10% to Diploma holders in the
selection of candidates to M.S., and M.D., courses
in the respective subjects or sub-specialities.
13. Certificates to be produced :- In all
cases true copies of the following documents have
to be produced :-
xxx
(k) Any other certificates required along
with the application.
This composite statement cannot be read
formalistic fashion. Mode of proof is geared to the
goal of the qualification in question. It is subversive
Patna High Court L.P.A No.526 of 2023 dt.05-08-2025
of 'sound interpretation and realistic decoding of
the prescription to telescope the two and make both
mandatory in point of time. What is essential in the
possession of a diploma before the given date; what
is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the
qualification. To confuse between a fact and its
proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory
the date of acquiring the additional qualification
before the last date for application makes sense.
But if it is unshakeably shown that the qualification
has been acquired before the relevant date, as is the
case here, to invalidate this merit factor because
proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days
later but before the selection or in a manner not
mentioned in the prospectus, but still above board,
is to make procedure not the hand maid but the
mistress and form not as subservient to substance
but as superior to the essence.
21. Before the selection committee adds special
marks to a candidate based on a prescribed ground
it asks itself the primary question, has he the
requisite qualification? If he has, the marks must be
added. The manner of proving the qualification is
indicated and should ordinarily be adopted. But, if
the candidate convincingly establishes the ground,
though through a method different from the
specified one, he cannot be denied the benefit. The
end cannot be undermined by the means. Actual
excellence cannot be obliterated by the choice of an
incontestable but unorthodox probative process.
Equity shall overpower technicality where human
justice is at stake."
Patna High Court L.P.A No.526 of 2023 dt.05-08-2025
10. In the case of Sweety Kumari (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph nos.18 and 19 as
under :-
"18. The view taken by this Court is fortified by the
analogy drawn in the case of Charles K. Skaria
and Others v. Dr. C. Mathew and Others (1980) 2
SCC 752: (AIR 1980 SC 1230) whereby Justice
Krishna Iyer speaking for the Court held that the
factum of eligibility is different from factum of
proof thereof. This Court held that if a person
possesses eligibility before the date of actual
selection, he cannot be denied benefit because its
proof is produced later.
19. In the present case, the proof is available and
true photocopies were on record. The appellants'
candidature could not have been rejected merely
because the original was not produced before the
Commission at the time of interview in particular
when such requirement was not mandatory, in view
of the manner in which the Rules are couched."
11. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra),
upon which the reliance has been placed by the present
appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph
no.20 as under :-
"20. Possession of requisite educational
qualification is mandatory. The same should not
be uncertain. If an uncertainty is allowed to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.526 of 2023 dt.05-08-2025
prevail, the employer would be flooded with
applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off
date for the purpose of determining the eligibility
of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be
fixed. In absence of any rule or any specific date
having been fixed in the advertisement, the law,
therefore, as held by this Court would be the last
date for filing the application."
12. Thus, from the observations made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, it can be said that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in the said case that before the
Selection Committee adds special marks to a candidate based on
a prescribed ground it asks itself the primary question, has he
the requisite qualification? If he has, the marks must be added.
If the candidate convincingly establishes the ground, though
through a method different from the specified one, he cannot be
denied the benefit. The end cannot be undermined by the means.
13. Keeping in view the aforesaid decisions rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Charles K. Skaria
(supra) with the facts of the present case, as discussed herein
above, we are of the view that in the present case, the petitioner
has acquired the required qualification prior to the cut-off date
and, therefore, we are of the view that the Selection Committee
has not committed any error while accepting the candidature of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.526 of 2023 dt.05-08-2025
the original writ petitioner. Similarly, the learned Single Judge
has also not committed any error while exercising powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while considering the
case of the present petitioner as she was having the required
requisite qualification of certificate of computer knowledge
prior to the cut-off date and even prior to the date of
advertisement. The view taken by the learned Single Judge
cannot be faulted on any ground.
14. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra), the
facts are different. In the said case, the concerned candidate
passed the examination on 30.10.1995, however, he was allowed
to appear before the Selection Committee despite the fact that he
did not hold the requisite qualification till the date of filing of
the application and the said candidate was selected. In the said
case, admittedly, the concerned candidate did not hold the
requisite qualification as on the cut-off date and, therefore, he
was not eligible. Considering the said factual aspect, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the observation in paragraph
no.20 of the said decision that possession of requisite
educational qualification is mandatory. We are of the view that
the aforesaid decision would not render any assistance to the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.526 of 2023 dt.05-08-2025
15. We have also gone through the reasoning recorded
by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition
filed by the original writ petitioner and we are of the view that
the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while
passing the impugned order. Hence, no interference is required
in the present appeal.
16. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/Shiv
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 08.08.2025
Transmission Date NA
