A. Abhishek Reddy, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

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

“(i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s) thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2022 as contained in Memo No. 02 dated 02.01.2023 passed by the respondent Divisional Commissioner, Purnea in Supply Revision No. 60/2022 (Md. Skahir Raza vs. the State of Bihar & ors.) whereby the said respondent while allowing the revision filed by the respondent no. 8 has reversed the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the respondent no. 4 in Supply Appeal Case No. 188/2019 thereby directing the competent authority to select the respondent no. 8 as PDS dealer for Block- Kasba, Gram Panchayat Gurhi, Distt.-Purnea.

(ii) For consequently issuance of appropriate writ(s) thereby directing the respondents concerned to grant the petitioner PDS dealer license for Gram Panchayat, Gurhi, Block Kasba, Distt.-Purnea as he fulfills all the requisite eligibility for the same which is required under Clause 9 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

(iii) For grant of any other relief (s) which the petitioner may be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

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 dated 15.03.2022 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.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order passed by the revisional authority is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the respondent No. 8 did not have the requisite computer knowledge as on the date of application and that the certificate produced by the respondent No. 8 subsequently after period of one year cannot be taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to set aside the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. Learned counsel has further stated that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner is also liable to be set aside on the ground that the same is contrary to the Rule 9(v) of Bihar Targeted Public Di