Patna High Court
Md. Rahmat Ali vs The State Of Bihar on 24 March, 2025
Author: A. Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A. Abhishek Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3817 of 2023
======================================================
Md. Rahmat Ali S/o Abdus Samad Ansari, Resident of Matkopa, Jiyanganj,
Gurhi, Distt. - Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea.
4. The District Magistrate, Purnea.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Purnea.
6. The District Supply Officer, Block - Kasba, Purnea.
7. The Block Supply Officer, Block - Kasba, Purnea.
8. Md. Shakir Raza, S/o Md. Jamiluddin, resident of vill.- Jiyanganj, P.S. -
Kasba, Distt. - Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Imtiyaz Hussain
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal ( Sc 4 )
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-03-2025
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for the following
relief(s):-
"(i) For issuance of appropriate
writ(s) thereby quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dated 13.12.2022 as contained
in Memo No. 02 dated 02.01.2023 passed by
the respondent Divisional Commissioner,
Purnea in Supply Revision No. 60/2022 (Md.
Skahir Raza vs. the State of Bihar & ors.)
whereby the said respondent while allowing the
revision filed by the respondent no. 8 has
reversed the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by
the respondent no. 4 in Supply Appeal Case
Patna High Court CWJC No.3817 of 2023 dt.24-03-2025
2/8
No. 188/2019 thereby directing the competent
authority to select the respondent no. 8 as PDS
dealer for Block- Kasba, Gram Panchayat
Gurhi, Distt.-Purnea.
(ii) For consequently issuance of
appropriate writ(s) thereby directing the
respondents concerned to grant the petitioner
PDS dealer license for Gram Panchayat,
Gurhi, Block Kasba, Distt.-Purnea as he fulfills
all the requisite eligibility for the same which is
required under Clause 9 of the Bihar Targeted
Public Distribution System (Control) Order,
2016.
(iii) For grant of any other relief
(s) which the petitioner may be entitled to in
the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has applied for
the PDS dealership and at that relevant point of time, the petitioner
has passed Fauquania examination in the year 2009 with first
division from Bihar State, Madarsa, Education Board, Patna and
he has also passed Maulvi examination in the year 2012 with
second division from the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board,
Patna. The petitioner thereafter has completed one year advanced
diploma in computer application. However, the authorities have
selected the respondent No. 8 who did not possess any computer
knowledge and further the respondent No. 8 had submitted his
computer certificate subsequently after one year. That the
authorities prepared a provisional list after due enquiry in which
the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 18 and possessing the
computer knowledge whereas as against the respondent No. 8, the
computer knowledge certificate was missing. That the respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.3817 of 2023 dt.24-03-2025
3/8
No. 8 was appointed as a PDS dealer even though he did not
possess the requisite qualification. That the petitioner aggrieved by
the selection of the respondent No. 8 though initially has preferred
a CWJC before this Hon'ble Court subsequently, preferred an
appeal as directed by this Court. The appeal filed by the petitioner
was numbered as Supply Appeal No. 188 of 2019 before the
respondent No. 4 herein and the respondent No. 4 vide order dated
15.03.2022
has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and
cancelled the PDS license issued in favour of the respondent No.
8. That the respondent No. 8 aggrieved by the order passed by the
appellate authority has preferred Supply Revision No. 60 of 2022
before the Divisional Commissioner i.e. respondent No. 3 herein.
The revisional authority without verifying the record and
miscontruing the provisions of the Rule 9(v) of Bihar Targeted
Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 has allowed the
revision and set aside the order under appeal and restored the
license of the respondent No. 8.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has vehemently argued that the order passed by the revisional
authority is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the
respondent No. 8 did not have the requisite computer knowledge
as on the date of application and that the certificate produced by
Patna High Court CWJC No.3817 of 2023 dt.24-03-2025
the respondent No. 8 subsequently after period of one year cannot
be taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
therefore, prayed this Hon'ble Court to set aside the impugned
order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. Learned counsel has
further stated that the order passed by the Divisional
Commissioner is also liable to be set aside on the ground that the
same is contrary to the Rule 9(v) of Bihar Targeted Public
Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. Learned counsel has
therefore, prayed for allowing the present writ petition and cancel
the PDS license issued in favour of the respondent No. 8.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent-State as well as the respondent No. 8 have
vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present writ
petition. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 has stated that
the respondent No. 8 was having the requisite qualifications and
his appointment was perfectly in consonance with the provisions
of the (Control) Order, 2016, more specifically, Rule 9(v). Learned
counsel has stated that the order passed by the Divisional
Commissioner does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and
the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel has further stated that the respondent No. 8 has
passed Fauquania examination in the year 1994 and Maulvi
Patna High Court CWJC No.3817 of 2023 dt.24-03-2025
examination in the year 2007 and was also having computer
knowledge.
6. In order to resolve the issue involved in the present
writ petition, this Court has called for the original file pertaining
the selection of the respondent No. 8 and perused the applications
made by both the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 8. A
perusal of the application made by the petitioner reveals that he
was having the requisite qualifications and in his application. As
against column No. 1(छ) as against the "कंपयूटर जान" (computer
knowledge), the petitioner has stated "yes" and enclosed the
requisite certificates. The check list of the petitioner also reveals
that as on the date of his application he was having the computer
knowledge and had enclosed the certificates. However, in the
application made by the respondent No. 8 as against the column
No. 1(छ) i.e., "कंपयूटर जान", the respondent No. 8 has not filled up
the column and left it blank. Though the learned counsel for the
respondent No. 8 has relied on the check list prepared at the time
of application to contend that the respondent No. 8 was having the
computer knowledge, a perusal of the check list reveals that there
is interpolation in the column No. 6 at "कंपयूटर का जान है या नहीं"
initially the word "Yes" has been struck off and "No" has been
written. Though the learned counsel has stated that somebody has
Patna High Court CWJC No.3817 of 2023 dt.24-03-2025
tried to manipulate his check list. A perusal of the same reveals
that the ink which has been used is different from the rest of the
page. Therefore, the respondent No. 8 cannot take advantage of the
same as in the application made by the respondent No. 8 as against
the computer knowledge he has left it blank. Further, the
respondent No. 8 has relied on another check list purported to have
been made on 31.05.2017 but perusal of the same reveals that ink
on the said check list is different from the one prepared by the
authorities earlier when compared to the other documents prepared
on the very same day, the ink is new and in a different hand
writing therefore, the same also cannot be take into consideration.
7. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and
circumstances, the reasons given by the Divisional Commissioner
in setting aside the order of the appellate authority and restoring
the license of the respondent No. 8 cannot be countenanced in
view of the provisions of the (Control) Order, 2016, more
specifically Rule 9(v) which reads as under;
"9. The following facts shall be considered in allotting a
fair price shop by the Selection Committee.
(i) ....
(ii) ....
(iii) ....
(iv) ....
(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
Patna High Court CWJC No.3817 of 2023 dt.24-03-2025
highest qualification also the applicant of older age shall be given
priority."
8. The Rule is very clear that a person who has passed a
matriculation and having computer knowledge should be preferred
and in case of a person having a higher qualification, the person
having a higher qualification should be selected and in case the
educational qualifications are same then the age should be taken
into consideration. In this particular case, both the petitioner as
well as respondent No. 8 are having equal qualification but insofar
as the respondent No. 8 is concerned, he does not have the
requisite computer knowledge as on the date of his filing the
application. The application made by the petitioner reveals that as
against column 1(छ) he has left blank and does not reveal that he
has enclosed the copy of the computer certificate obtained by him.
9. Having regard to above mentioned facts and
circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Purnea dated 13.12.2022 is set aside and the order
passed by the appellate authority in Supply Appeal No. 188/2019
dated 15.03.2022 is restored. The authorities are directed to issue
the license in favour of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order. The original file which produced by the
government pleader is being returned.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3817 of 2023 dt.24-03-2025
10. With the above direction, the present writ petition
stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-
AFR/NAFR NA
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 27.03.2025.
Transmission Date NA
