AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has challenged the grant of PDS license to private respondent no. 6 on the ground that her exclusion is on a non est ground.
It appears that initially the candidature of the petitioner was selected for grant of license. However, later she was non-suited on the ground of her not answering questions in the field of computer to the satisfaction of the interviewing authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the knowledge of computer of an applicant is not required to be tested. The certificate in that regard by any institute should suffice.
According to Section 9 of the Bihar Targeted P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2016, in the event of a candidate having computer proficiency, he/she would be given preference over the other candidates.
In the present case, there is no averment that the private respondent no. 6 is not computer educated or that the petitioner is better qualified than private respondent no. 6. There may not be any requirement of subjecting the aspirants/candidates to any regular test of computer but for the authority to grant license in the event of many persons being computer literate, this perhaps would be the only way of eliminating persons and choosing the best. This appears to have been done in the present case.
No fault could be found in the aforesaid scheme in selecting private respondent no. 6.
No case has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner for any interference with the decisions of the respondents in granting PDS license to private respondent no. 6.
There is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.