Disputed PDS dealership eligibility claims require fresh, reasoned determination by the competent authority.

The petitioner and respondent no. 9 applied for a PDS dealership at Champanagar Gram Panchayat under Advertisement No. 1 of 2017.

The petitioner claimed to hold an Advance Diploma in Computer Application (ADCA), while respondent no. 9 held a Diploma in Computer Application (DCA); the petitioner argued that his qualification and older age entitled him to preference under Clause 9(v) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016

The District Level Selection Committee selected respondent no. 9 in its final list dated 20 July 2018

After the petitioner’s earlier writ petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the Divisional Commissioner, the Commissioner dismissed his revision on 8 June 2023

The State respondents maintained that the petitioner had disclosed himself as an Intermediate pass, while respondent no. 9 had disclosed a B.A. qualification; respondent no. 9 also disputed the petitioner’s residence and relied on the preference for local residents

1. Whether the Commissioner’s order dated 8 June 2023, upholding respondent no. 9’s selection, should be set aside in light of the competing claims about the applicants’ disclosed educational and computer qualifications and the applicable preference criteria

2. Whether the petitioner’s and respondent no. 9’s respective residence claims and other objections required reconsideration by the competent authority on the relevant records

Clause 9(v) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, as described in the judgment, requires an applicant to be an adult and matriculate, gives preference to an applicant with computer knowledge, and provides that, in case of equality in computer knowledge, preference goes first to the applicant with the higher general qualification and then, if qualifications are equal, to the older applicant

The judgment also records the reliance placed by respondent no. 9 on Rinku Kumari v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 6641 of 2023, which discussed the priority for residents of a panchayat or ward under Clause 8(v), alongside the eligibility and preference criteria in Clause 9

The Court did not finally interpret or apply these provisions to determine which applicant was entitled to selection.

The Court found that the dispute depended on unresolved factual questions, particularly what educational and computer qualifications the parties had disclosed when applying, and how the relevant preference criteria applied to those records

It also held that respondent no. 9’s residence contention and other objections required consideration by the competent authority

Because these matters required assessment of the documents and competing contentions, the Court set aside the Commissioner’s order and directed a fresh decision, without expressing any view on the merits of either party’s claim.

It set aside the Commissioner’s order dated 8 June 2023 and remitted the matter to the Commissioner, Koshi Division, to consider the parties’ documents and contentions, afford them an opportunity of hearing, and pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law

The writ petition was disposed of on those terms