Eligibility is affirmed if qualifications are acquired before the cut-off date, irrespective of proof submission timing; proof is secondary to qualification possession.

JUDGMENT :

Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ.

Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, learned AAG-5 for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No.7.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Clause-X, Appendix-E of the Patna High Court Rules against the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C No. 7943 of 2022 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the present opponent no.7/original writ petitioner.

3. The factual matrix of the present case is as under :-

3.1. The present opponent no.7/original writ petitioner filed the captioned writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner had prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea in Supply Appeal No. 28 of 2019 whereby the Public Distribution System dealership license issued in favour of the petitioner came to be cancelled.

3.2. It is a case of the writ petitioner that she applied for grant of fair price shop dealership licence for Gangeli Gram Panchayat under Bihar Targetted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Order of 2016’). It is further the case of the petitioner that the original respondent no.7 and others also submitted their applications before the competent authority.

3.3. It is also the case of the petitioner that thereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Purnea asked the Block Supply Officer to submit an enquiry report relating to the application submitted by the concerned candidates for grant of the aforesaid licence. Pursuant to the same, the concerned Block Supply Officer, Purnea submitted his report dated 25.09.2017. In the said report, it has been stated by the said officer that the petitioner and other candidates possess computer knowledge which is essential for giving priority over others.

3.4. It is further case of the petitioner that on 26.07.2018, the application was submitted by the petitioner before the District Supply Officer, Purnea along with the computer certificate, Aadhar Card, Pan Card at the stage of claim/objection. It was further stated in the said application that she could not submit her computer certificate, Aadhar Card and Pan Card along with her application for grant of fair price shop dealership licence.

3.5. The petitioner has also stated that at the time of consideration of the application submitted by all the candidates/applicants, the Selection Committee considered the application of the petitioner and thereafter in the meeting held on 29.09.2018 under the Chairmanship of District Collector, Purnea, it was decided to issue licence in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the licence was issued in favour of the petitioner.

3.6. It has been further stated in the memo of the petition that against the decision taken by the concerned Selection Committee granting licence in favour of the petitioner, the original respondent no.7/present appellant filed an appeal, being Supply Appeal no.28 of 2019, before the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the concerned Divisional Commissioner, Purnea vide order dated 16.03.2022 allowed the appeal filed by the original respondent no.7 and thereby the licence issued in favour of the petitioner under the Order of 2016 came to be cancelled.

3.7. The petitioner, therefore, filed the captioned writ petition before this Court. Learned Single Judge allowed the said petition and thereby quashed and set aside the order dated 16.03.2022 passed by