Case Background
This case concerns selection of a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealer for Gram Panchayat Gurhi, Block Kasba, District Purnea, under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
The petitioner had applied for the PDS dealership. At the time of application, he had passed Fauquania examination in 2009 with first division and Maulvi examination in 2012 with second division, both from the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna. He had also completed a one-year advanced diploma in computer application.
According to the petitioner, a provisional list was prepared after enquiry. In this list, he was shown at serial number 18 and noted as having computer knowledge. However, the respondent no. 8 was ultimately selected and appointed as PDS dealer, even though, according to the petitioner, respondent no. 8 did not possess the required computer knowledge at the time of application and submitted his computer certificate only one year later.
Feeling aggrieved by the selection of respondent no. 8, the petitioner first approached the Patna High Court by way of a writ petition. On the Court’s direction, he then filed a statutory appeal before the District Magistrate, Purnea, who was the appellate authority.
This appeal was registered as Supply Appeal No. 188 of 2019. By order dated 15.03.2022, the District Magistrate allowed the appeal, cancelled the PDS license issued in favour of respondent no. 8, and granted relief to the petitioner.
Respondent no. 8 then challenged this appellate order by filing Supply Revision No. 60 of 2022 before the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea. By order dated 13.12.2022, contained in Memo No. 02 dated 02.01.2023, the Divisional Commissioner allowed the revision, set aside the appellate order, and restored the PDS license of respondent no. 8.
The petitioner returned to the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3817 of 2023, seeking quashing of the Divisional Commissioner’s revisional order and a direction to grant him the PDS dealer license for Gram Panchayat Gurhi.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner’s main grievance was that the Divisional Commissioner wrongly restored the license of respondent no. 8 by misreading Rule 9(v) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
He argued that, as per the Control Order, applicants having computer knowledge should be given priority when allotting a fair price shop. He claimed that he had computer knowledge and proper certificates at the time of application, while respondent no. 8 did not.
The petitioner contended that respondent no. 8’s computer certificate, submitted about one year after the application, could not legally be considered. Therefore, respondent no. 8 was not eligible to get priority or selection based on computer knowledge on the relevant date.
He also argued that the Divisional Commissioner’s decision contradicted Rule 9(v), and requested that the High Court restore the appellate authority’s order cancelling respondent no. 8’s license and directing that he, the petitioner, be selected as PDS dealer.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and for respondent no. 8 opposed the writ petition, including its maintainability. Counsel for respondent no. 8 claimed that respondent no. 8 possessed all requisite qualifications and that his appointment was strictly in line with the Control Order, particularly Rule 9(v).
They argued that the Divisional Commissioner’s revisional order suffered from no illegality and that the petitioner’s challenge deserved dismissal. It was also stated on behalf of respondent no. 8 that he had passed Fauquania examination in 1994, Maulvi examination in 2007, and that he had computer knowledge.
To resolve the dispute, the Patna High Court called for the original file relating to the selection of respondent no. 8. The Court specifically examined the applications and check lists of both candidates.
On perusal of the petitioner’s application, the Court noted that he had the required qualifications. In column no. 1(छ), relating to “कंप्यूटर जानता हूँ” (computer knowledge), the petitioner had written “yes” and enclosed the necessary certificates. The check list for the petitioner also showed that, as on the date of his application, he had computer knowledge and had attached the supporting documents.
When the Court examined the application of respondent no. 8, a different picture emerged. In column no. 1(छ), relating to computer knowledge, respondent no. 8 had left the column blank. This indicated that, at the time of application, he did not claim to have computer knowledge or did not submit any certificate along with his form.
Counsel for respondent no. 8 tried to rely on a check list prepared at the time of application to argue that respondent no. 8 had computer knowledge. However, the High Court carefully looked at this check list and noticed interpolation in column no. 6, where the question was “कंप्यूटर का ज्ञान है या नहीं” (whether he has computer knowledge or not).
Initially, the word “Yes” had been written, then struck off, and “No” was inserted. The Court observed that the ink used for this alteration was different from the ink used in the rest of the document.
Although counsel for respondent no. 8 argued that someone had tried to manipulate his check list, the Court held that respondent no. 8 could not take benefit from this altered document. The key reason was that his original application itself had the computer knowledge column left blank.
Respondent no. 8 also relied on another check list, purportedly prepared on 31.05.2017, to support his claim of computer knowledge. The Court compared this document with other documents prepared on the same day and noticed that the ink appeared new and the handwriting different from that of the earlier official records.
Because of these differences, the Court found that this second check list could not safely be relied upon and therefore could not be taken into consideration.
After this factual examination, the Court turned to Rule 9(v) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016. The Rule, as quoted in the judgment, states that the applicant for a fair price shop license must be matric pass and an adult. It further provides 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.”
The Court explained that this Rule is clear: among matric-passed adults, those with computer knowledge are to be preferred. If more than one applicant has computer knowledge, then higher educational qualification is the next basis for preference. If qualifications are equal, then age is to be considered.
In this case, the Court found that both the petitioner and respondent no. 8 had equal educational qualifications for the purpose of the rule. However, the crucial distinction was in computer knowledge as on the date of application.
Based on the application forms and the reliable check list, the Court held that respondent no. 8 did not have, or at least did not claim or prove, computer knowledge on the date of his application. He had left the relevant column blank and there was no accepted proof that any computer certificate had been attached with his initial application.
Therefore, the Divisional Commissioner’s reasons for setting aside the appellate authority’s order and restoring respondent no. 8’s license were found to be contrary to the Control Order, 2016, particularly Rule 9(v).
In view of these findings, the Patna High Court set aside the Divisional Commissioner’s order dated 13.12.2022 in Supply Revision No. 60 of 2022. It restored the District Magistrate’s appellate order dated 15.03.2022 passed in Supply Appeal No. 188 of 2019.
The Court also issued a clear direction to the authorities to issue the PDS license in favour of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the High Court’s order.
With these directions, the writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for PDS applicants and village communities in Bihar because it shows that authorities must strictly follow the eligibility rules under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
The Patna High Court made it clear that computer knowledge and supporting certificates must exist and be shown at the time of the application. Later attempts to补 up documents, or doubtful corrections in official check lists, will not be treated as valid.
For candidates, this means that if they genuinely meet all qualifications and can show it on record, they can challenge unfair selections or doubtful manipulations. For officers, it is a reminder that any departure from the clear wording of Rule 9(v) can be struck down by the Court.
Practically, the decision helps ensure that PDS shops, which affect the daily food supply of poor households, are allotted to candidates according to transparent and verifiable criteria.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the Divisional Commissioner was justified in restoring respondent no. 8’s PDS license despite absence of proven computer knowledge at the time of application, under Rule 9(v) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that respondent no. 8 did not demonstrate computer knowledge as on the date of his application and could not rely on later or interpolated documents. The Divisional Commissioner’s order was set aside and the appellate order in favour of the petitioner was restored. - Issue: Who was entitled to priority for the PDS dealer license between the petitioner and respondent no. 8 under Rule 9(v).
Answer: The petitioner. Both candidates had equal educational qualification, but only the petitioner had clearly established computer knowledge at the time of application. Therefore, the authorities were directed to issue the PDS license to the petitioner.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No previous judgments or case law have been cited or relied upon in the text of this judgment.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3817 of 2023
Case Title: Md. Rahmat Ali vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Abhishek Reddy
Date of Judgment: 24.03.2025
Citation: 2025 (2) PLJR 643
Advocates:
For the petitioner: Mr. Md. Imtiyaz Hussain
For the respondents/State: Mr. Arvind Ujjwal (SC 4)
Nature of the case: Writ petition challenging revisional order in PDS dealer selection under the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.
Challenged Order: Order dated 13.12.2022 contained in Memo No. 02 dated 02.01.2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, in Supply Revision No. 60 of 2022.
Result: Writ petition allowed; revisional order set aside; appellate order in Supply Appeal No. 188 of 2019 dated 15.03.2022 restored; authorities directed to issue PDS license to the petitioner within four weeks.
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMzgxNyMyMDIzIzEjTg==-HRQhGuNXH3M=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
