Computer qualification acquired after the application date cannot confer priority in PDS dealership selection.

The petitioner applied for appointment as a Public Distribution System (PDS) fair-price shop dealer for a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe-reserved vacancy in Gram Panchayat Jayantipur, Nauhatta Block, Rohtas, along with fourteen other candidates.

The District Selection Committee selected respondent no. 9, Kumari Seema, as the dealer by order dated 17 January 2021. The petitioner challenged the selection before the appellate authority, which rejected her claim on 22 February 2021, and thereafter preferred a revision, which was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner on 20 October 2022.

The petitioner contended that she was more qualified and that her computer qualification entitled her to priority under the applicable guidelines.

Respondent no. 9 maintained that she had submitted the requisite caste and educational certificates and had been correctly placed at Serial No. 2 in the final merit list, while the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 4.

The Court found that the petitioner’s application had been submitted on 17 April 2017, whereas her computer qualification was acquired only thereafter, on 10 September 2018.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to priority for appointment as a PDS dealer on the basis of her computer qualification when she did not possess that qualification on the date of submitting her application.

Whether the orders of the District Selection Committee, the appellate authority, and the revisional authority selecting respondent no. 9 suffered from illegality or material irregularity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Rule 9(v) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which requires an applicant for a fair-price shop licence to be an adult and matriculation-pass, while providing that an applicant possessing computer knowledge shall receive priority; in cases of equality in computer knowledge, higher educational qualification and then older age determine priority.

The Court treated the applicant’s eligibility and qualifications as referable to the date of submission of the application.

No judicial precedent was relied upon in the judgment.

The Court noted that the petitioner submitted her application on 17 April 2017 but obtained her computer qualification only on 10 September 2018.

Since the relevant qualification had to accompany the application and was not possessed on the application date, the petitioner could not claim the priority contemplated by Rule 9(v).

Consequently, the authorities were justified in preferring respondent no. 9 and rejecting the petitioner’s challenge.

The Court found no error or irregularity in the selection, appellate, or revisional orders.

It upheld the selection of respondent no. 9 as the PDS shop dealer and declined to interfere with the orders dated 17 January 2021, 22 February 2021, and 20 October 2022.

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.