MD. RAHMAT ALI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that he has applied for the PDS dealership and at that relevant point of time, the petitioner has passed Fauquania examination in the year 2009 with first division from Bihar State, Madarsa, Education Board, Patna and he has also passed Maulvi examination in the year 2012 with second division from the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna. The petitioner thereafter has completed one year advanced diploma in computer application. However, the authorities have selected the respondent No. 8 who did not possess any computer knowledge and further the respondent No. 8 had submitted his computer certificate subsequently after one year. That the authorities prepared a provisional list after due enquiry in which the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 18 and possessing the computer knowledge whereas as against the respondent No. 8, the computer knowledge certificate was missing. That the respondent No. 8 was appointed as a PDS dealer even though he did not possess the requisite qualification. That the petitioner aggrieved by the selection of the respondent No. 8 though initially has preferred a CWJC before this Hon'ble Court subsequently, preferred an appeal as directed by this Court. The appeal filed by the petitioner was numbered as Supply Appeal No. 188 of 2019 before the respondent No. 4 herein and the respondent No. 4 vide order dtd. 15/3/2022 has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and cancelled the PDS license issued in favour of the respondent No. 8. That the respondent No. 8 aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority has preferred Supply Revision No. 60 of 2022 before the Divisional Commissioner i.e. respondent No. 3 herein. The revisional authority without verifying the record and miscontruing the provisions of the Rule 9(v) of Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 has allowed the revision and set aside the order under appeal and restored the license of the respondent No. 8.