Hon’ble Amar Singh Chauhan, J.—This writ petition has been filed for the quashing of the order dated 31.8.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad, whereby respondent No. 4, Smt. Ramwati widow of late Saudan Singh, resident of village Kadiuli, Block Nawabganj, District Farrukhabad was selected as New Fair Price Shop dealer of Gram Sabha Kadiuli, Block Nawabganju, District Farrukhabad.

2. Shorn of details, the facts of the matter are that vacancy of fair price shop dealer in village Kadiuli, Block Nawabganj, District Farrukhabad arose after the death of fair price shop dealer Sri Saudan Singh on 17.8.2013. The petitioner alongwith some other resident of the village were interested in getting the license of fair price shop and they approached the Gram Sabha for sending a proposal for allotment of a fresh dealer. The Gaon Sabha sent a fresh proposal to U.P. Zila Adhikari seeking permission for appointing a new fair price dealer on 23.8.2013, duly forwarded by the concerned B.D.O. On the same date.

3. The S.D.M./U.P. Zila Adhikari, Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad, vide order dated 31.8.2013 selected respondent No. 4, Smt. Ramwati widow of late Saudan Singh, a new fair price shop dealer of Gram Sabha Kadiuli, Nawabganj, Farrukhabad.

4. By means of this writ petition the impugned order has been challenged on two grounds, firstly because respondent No. 4 is an illiterate lady and has got no required educational qualification, provided by the Government order dated 31.10.2002. Secondly, the Gram Sabha has not passed any resolution in favour of the respondent No. 4, Smt. Ramwati widow of Saudan Singh who died on 17.8.2013. Under the Government order dated 31.10.2002, there is provision for allotting the fair price shop to the heir of the deceased licensed dealer provided his reputation was otherwise not suspect.

5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reputation of deceased dealer is disputed as is clear from the proposal proceedings of Gram Sabha which is marked as Annexure-1. In this respect, we do not agree with the proposal as it mentions only the reputation of the family members of fair price shop dealer whereas reputation of dealer is to be taken into account as per Government order dated 17.8.2002 which has not been done.

6. Sri Upendra Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is unjust, illegal, improper and against the provisions of Government order, because respondent No. 4, Smt. Ramwati is an illiterate lady and is not eligible in any manner for getting the fair price shop license. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the certified copy of Pariwar register, as well as certificate of Gram Pradhan and certificate of education department, in which Smt. Ram Wati has been shown as illiterate.

7. Sri Ram Murat Singh, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 and the learned Standing counsel, submitted that as per provisions of Government order of 2002:

“GRAMEEN KSHETRON MAI RATION KI DUKANO KA CHAYAN NIMMANLIKHIT ARHATAYA EVAM SHARTON KO DRASHTIGAT RAKHTE HUYE KIYA JAYEGA:

(Ka)...........

(Kha).................

(Ga) SHIKSHIT HO TAAKI who DUKAN KA HISAB KITAB SAHI ROOP SE RAKH SAKE.”

8. On the basis of the above provision, it has been argued on behalf of respondent No. 3 that Smt. Ramwati is a literate lady as she has made her signatures on the papers and affidavit submitted by her before the S.D.M. Thereafter the then U.P. Zila Adhikari considering the fact that she is a literate lady, appointed Smt. Ramwati as fair price shop dealer on 31.8.2013. In our opinion word ‘SHIKSHIT’ has been used in the provision with a view that the person concern so appointed as dealer can maintain the accounts properly.

9. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis on the point that the Gram Sabha has not passed any resolution in favour of the respondent No. 4, Smt. Ramwati till date and