Computer qualification requirements for PDS licences apply to individual applicants, not Self-Help Groups.

Pursuant to an advertisement for grant of a Public Distribution System (PDS) licence in Barauli Block, Gopalganj, the petitioner applied under the Extremely Backward Class category and relied upon his Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) qualification and Matriculation marks of 51.60%. His name appeared at Serial No. 1 in the provisional merit list, while respondent no. 8 appeared at Serial No. 7 with 49.33% Matriculation marks.

The District Level Selection Committee nevertheless recommended respondent no. 8, and the District Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s candidature by Memo No. 677/Aa dated 31 August 2020.

The petitioner challenged that decision and the Commissioner’s affirming order dated 4 October 2023 in Supply Revision Case No. 90/2021–22.

The respondents contended that respondent no. 8 was the Secretary of a Self-Help Group, a category entitled to priority under Clause 8(1) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, and that he also possessed an Additional Diploma in Computer Application certificate.

They further asserted that, where qualifications were equivalent, respondent no. 8 was entitled to preference as the older candidate under Clause 9(v).

Whether the selection of respondent no. 8 was invalid because he allegedly lacked the requisite computer qualification, despite the petitioner possessing a DCA certificate and securing a higher position in the provisional merit list?

Whether the separate application format and priority accorded to Self-Help Groups under the advertisement and the 2016 Control Order justified consideration and selection of respondent no. 8?

Whether respondent no. 8 was entitled to preference as the older candidate where the candidates possessed equivalent computer and educational qualifications?

The Court applied the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, particularly Clause 8(1), which accords preference to Self-Help Groups in allotment of fair-price shops except in cases of compassionate allotment.

It also applied Clause 9(v), including its proviso, under which preference may be given to the older candidate where applicants possess equivalent qualifications.

The advertisement separately prescribed application formats for individual applicants and Self-Help Groups and provided that computer-qualified applicants would receive preference; where computer qualifications were equivalent, preference would go to the more qualified candidate and, in case of further equality, to the older candidate.

The Court held that the educational and computer-qualification requirements in Clause 2 applied to individual applicants and could not be treated as disqualifications against a Self-Help Group, a juristic entity incapable of possessing personal educational qualifications.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s principal objection because respondent no. 8’s computer certificate was produced on record and, in any event, the advertisement contemplated separate criteria and forms for individuals and Self-Help Groups.

The absence of a computer certificate in the Self-Help Group application format could not therefore invalidate the candidature.

Respondent no. 8 was the Secretary of the Self-Help Group and the Group was entitled to the priority prescribed under the 2016 Control Order and Clause 3 of the advertisement.

The Court further accepted that the petitioner and respondent no. 8 possessed equivalent computer and educational qualifications.

Since respondent no. 8 was born on 27 June 1966 and the petitioner on 1 February 1967, respondent no. 8 was older and was consequently entitled to preference under the applicable provision.

On these facts, the Selection Committee’s decision was neither arbitrary nor contrary to the statutory scheme or the terms of the advertisement.

It found no illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural irregularity in the District Magistrate’s Memo No. 677/Aa dated 31 August 2020 or in the Commissioner’s order dated 4 October 2023.

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