Patna High Court Quashes Order Setting Aside PDS Shop Allotment, Rules In Favour Of Petitioner With Higher Qualification In Computer Knowledge
In a recent order passed by the Patna High Court, the Secretary's decision to set aside the allotment of a PDS shop to the Petitioner and award it to another candidate has been quashed and set aside. The Petitioner had challenged the placement of the other candidate in the provisional merit list and claimed that he was entitled to be placed at No. 1.The counsel for the Petitioner submitted...
In a recent order passed by the Patna High Court, the Secretary's decision to set aside the allotment of a PDS shop to the Petitioner and award it to another candidate has been quashed and set aside. The Petitioner had challenged the placement of the other candidate in the provisional merit list and claimed that he was entitled to be placed at No. 1.
The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner possessed better qualifications than the Respondent for the purpose of issuing a licence in terms of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order 2016.
On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 9 submitted that the impugned order did not suffer from any perversity. Further, the counsel pointed out the provisions of Rule 9 (v) proviso before the court, and submitted that the Respondent No. 9 possessed higher qualification of Post Graduation and was therefore entitled for the selection.
The counsel argued that the respondent was rightfully placed at the top of the provisional merit list, entitling him to be allocated the licence in question. Following the Commissioner's order, the respondent has been granted the licence and is currently operating it. The State's counsel supported the arguments presented by the Respondent’s counsel.
JUDGEMENT
The court noted, “It is to be noticed that the concerned shop was unreserved. TheRespondent 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).”
Pointing out the failure of the Secretary to examine who was to be treated as more meritorious, the court noted, “he 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.
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.”
“The first aspect which is to be examined”, the court said, “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 inComputer Application, the petitioner possesses qualification ofB.Sc. (IT) which is a higher qualification in computer knowledge.”
The court was of the view that 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, and the said aspect having not been considered by the Secretary vitiates the order passed by him.
The court further found the Petitioner therefore to have been rightly treated as higher meritorious while issuing the licence for PDS shop by the District Supplier Officer’s order and that there was no occasion to set aside the said order with respect to the petitioner by the Secretary.
Quashing the order passed by the Secretary as it suffered from perversity and cannot be sustained in law, the court held the Petitioner to have been rightly treated as higher meritorious while issuing the licence for PDS shop by the District Supplier Officer’s order, and stated, “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.
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 licence of PDS shop in terms of the order passed by the DistrictSupplier Officer dated 31.08.2020 for the region as mentioned there.”
Case Title: Virendra Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7786 of 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 11