Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

¶1

1

¶2

( 2026:HHC:10274 )

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶4

CWP No.8236 of 2024

¶5

Decided on: 06.04.2026

¶6

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rakesh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others .....Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L.Verma, Advocate.

¶11

For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4.

¶12

None for respondent No.5.

¶13

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶14

Petitioner feels aggrieved against non-allocation

¶15

of five marks to him on account of his having passed matriculation examination, during selection process for appointment of distributor of fair price shop. According to the petitioner, five marks were wrongly denied to him. Had those marks been awarded to him, he would have been at Sr. No.1 of the merit list, instead the respondent -Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs department selected respondent No.5. Hence, the writ petition.

¶16

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶17

2

¶18

( 2026:HHC:10274 )

¶19

2. Despite service, respondent No.5 has chosen not to contest the petition. Respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed reply.

¶20

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

¶21

3(i). Respondent No.4 vide public notice dated 31.01.2024 invited applications through online mode for allotment of fair price shops including at Durkanu (Ward No.1), Gram Panchyat, Kanho, Block Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. Petitioner, respondent No.5- Shri Uma Dutt and one Sh. Jia Lal applied for allotment of the aforesaid fair price shop. 3(ii). Matter regarding allotment of fair price shop was placed by the respondents before the Public Distribution Committee headed by the Chairman-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Mandi- respondent No.3 on 15.07.2024.

¶22

At this juncture, it would be in-place to refer to following clause (6) from State Government notification dated 31.03.2021 prescribing the guidelines and procedure for awarding marks to the applicants in the selection process for allotment of fair price shop:

¶23

“6. The PDC shall maintain the record of allotment of FPS. The individual FPS Holder should have minimum qualification of matriculation from a recognized Board/University. In case of individual applicants, the procedure of selection will be as under:-

¶24

3

¶25

( 2026:HHC:10274 )

¶26

Matriculation 5 marks

¶27

Higher Education 2 marks (+2 or above)

¶28

Same ward 3 marks

¶29

SC/ST/OBC/BPL3 marks (if the applicant falls within more than one category only 3 marks will be given)

¶30

In case of tie, preference will be given to the applicant having higher percentage in the examination of matriculation. If there is still a tie. Then preference will be given to the applicant having higher age. Person applying for FPS must be of age of 18-45 years, FPS holder will retire at an age of 65 years.

¶31

For the FPS allotted to the Public Institutions or Public bodies, the salesperson should possess minimum qualification of matriculation from recognized Board University. Retirement age of salesperson of Public Institution or Public bodies shall not more than 65 years.”

¶32

The respondent-department awarded marks to the three applicants including the petitioner and respondent No.5 as under:-

¶33

Sr. No.	Name and address of applicant	Edu. Qualific ation	Other attached documents	Comme marks	nts/
1.	Sh. Uma Dutt s/o Sh. Mast Ram,	10^th 332/70 0	Bonafide HP, Income.	Second Preferen (iv)	ce
	Village Durkanu, P.O. Kandha,		Un- employme nt BPL, Local	Matric Higher Edu.	5 0
	Sub-Tehsil Bagshad, District		resident	Same Ward	3
	Mandi, H.P.- 175010			SC/ST/ OBC/ BPL	3
				Total Marks	11

¶34

4

¶35

( 2026:HHC:10274 )

¶36

2.	Sh. Jiya Lal S/o Sh. Sant Ram Village	+2 228/50 0	Physical handicapp ed, local	Second Preferen (iv)	ce
	Durkanu, P.O.		resident, and site	Matric	0
	Kandha, Sub-Tehsil		plan	Higher Edu.	2
	Bagshad, District Mndi HP			Same Ward	3
	a, .. -175010			SC/ST/ OBC/ BPL	0
				Total Marks	5
3.	Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Man	+2 326/50 0 10^th	BPL, SC, Local resident,	Second Preferen (iv)	ce
	Singh, R/o Village	Certif. Not att.	Storage capacity,	Matric	0
	Deral, P.O. Kandha,		site	Higher Edu.	2
	Sub-Tehsil Bagshad,			Same Ward	3
	District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh			SC/ST/ OBC/ BPL	3
				Total Marks	8

¶37

3(iii). Petitioner is with the grievance that respondents have wrongly denied him five marks on account of matriculation. According to the petitioner, he was matriculate and therefore, ought to have been given five additional marks. That grant of five additional marks would take his total tally of marks from existing eight to thirteen or in other words would make him the first one in the merit list out of the three participating candidates. The

¶38

5

¶39

( 2026:HHC:10274 ) respondents’ stand is that the petitioner had not uploaded his matriculation certificate. Qualifying matriculation from recognized Board-University was minimum educational qualification required in order to be eligible. Petitioner having not uploaded matriculation certificate alongwith his online application, respondents justifiably neither considered his candidature nor awarded him marks for matriculation.

¶40

4. Consideration.

¶41

Respondents have not disputed award of marks to the candidates (extracted in para 3(ii) above). Petitioner has been given two marks for possessing higher educational qualification in lieu of his having passed 10+2 examination. Once the respondents awarded two marks to the petitioner for higher education and the higher education in the instant case was 10+2 examination passed by the petitioner from H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala (Annexure P-2 colly.), it was expected from the respondents to give one opportunity to the petitioner to produce his matriculation certificate when the petitioner was admittedly in possession of higher qualification of 10+2. Benefit of legally bonafide presumption could have given to him that he might be in possession of matriculation certificate. This certificate, even

¶42

6

¶43

( 2026:HHC:10274 ) if not uploaded could have been asked by the respondents from the petitioner, in the given case when number of participating candidates was only three and two of them had appended higher education certificates. Respondents did not resort to this method. Though it is the case of the petitioner as projected by him in the rejoinder that he had attempted to upload matriculation certificate online but was unable to do it as the portal admitted only uploading of one certificate and the petitioner accordingly, was able to upload 10+2 certificate. Be that as it may, the fact remains that petitioner was in possession of matriculation certificate on the date of applying online for the fair price shop in question and his certificate was from recognized BoardUniversity. Respondents have admittedly awarded two marks to the petitioner in lieu of his higher education. Entire matter was placed by the respondents before the Public Distribution Committee on 15.07.2024. The allotment of fair price shop was made in favour of respondent No.5 on 23.07.2024. Obviously the award of marks to the three participating candidates must have been made in between 15.07.2024 & 23.07.2024. Immediately on coming to know about selection of respondent No.5 and the denial of five marks due to him on account of his matriculation certificate,

¶44

7

¶45

( 2026:HHC:10274 ) the petitioner on 27.07.2024 (Annexure P-4) represented to the respondents for awarding him five more marks for having qualified matriculation. The respondents declined petitioner’s request on 05.09.2024 (Annexure R-3) on the ground that petitioner had not uploaded his matriculation certificate and therefore, did not satisfy the condition imposed in clause (6) of the notification dated 31.03.2021.

¶46

In my considered view, since the petitioner was in possession of matriculation certificate on the date of applying for the fair price shop, and the respondents have themselves awarded two marks to the petitioner in lieu of his 10+2 qualification, the respondents instead of hastily proceeding in the matter by allotting fair price shop to respondent No.5 should have called upon the other two participating candidates i.e. petitioner and one Sh. Jia Lal (who was also given two marks for higher education) and given them some reasonable opportunity to produce their matriculation certificates. The entire approach of the respondents No. 1 to 4, therefore, cannot be justified. The respondent No.5 admittedly did not possess higher qualification. He, therefore, stood at eleven marks. There would be no change in marks so far as respondent No.5 is concerned. However, addition of five marks to Sh. Jia Lal on

¶47

8

¶48

( 2026:HHC:10274 ) account of his matriculation certificate would make his total marks 5+5= 10 whereas the petitioner on being awarded five marks due to him on account of his matriculation certificate would now reach 8+5= 13 marks. Thus, he would be at Sr. No.1 of the merit list. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The selection and appointment of respondent No.5 as distributor of fair price shop, Block Development area, Karsog, Village Durkanu, Ward No.1 of Gram Panchayat, Kanho is quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner as distributor of the above described fair price shop within two weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶49

Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 06, 2026 Judge yogesh

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anant Ram Negi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Satya Dev Rattan and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Dabe Ram and Ors. Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Ors.

Mohammed Iqbal Vs the Hrtc and Others

Manish Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ajeta Sharma and Others Vs Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Another