1 2026:HHC:15025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15809 of 2024 Decided on: 06.05.2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Satyender Prakash …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Aman Parth Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Rupinder S. Minhas, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Food Supplies Officer-I & Mr. Chaman, Sr. Assistant, O/o Distt. Controller, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, District Mandi, H.P in person. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge A fair price shop was allotted by the Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of Himachal Pradesh in favour of respondent No.4. Petitioner assails this allotment and seeks allotment of shop for himself. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:15025 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. The Case. 3(i). A public notice (Annexure P-4) was issued by the respondent department on 31.01.2024 inviting applications through online mode for allotment of fair price shop at several locations including Chatrokhari (Ward No.5), Municipal Council, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. The said public notice was very categoric that minimum educational qualification required for applying for allotment of fair price shop was matriculation; The applicant should upload his matriculation certificate alongwith application; Application could be uploaded only till 23.02.2024; Neither the application nor any document would be accepted after 23.02.2024 and further that neither any application nor any document would be accepted offline/ by hand in the office. 3(ii). Procedure for selection while mandating requirement of minimum qualification of matriculation has been stipulated under notification dated 31.03.2021 (Annexure R-2), relevant portion of which is as under:- “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 3 2026:HHC:15025 applicants, the procedure of selection will be as under:- 1. Matriculation 5 marks 2. Higher Education 2 marks (+2 or above) 3. Same ward 3 marks 4. SC/ST/OBC/BPL 3 marks (if the applicant falls within more than one category only 3 marks will be given) 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…..” 4. Petitioner and respondent No.4, both applied for the above referred fair price shop. Respondents No. 1 to 3 convened meeting for selecting the candidate for allotment of fair price shop on 15.07.2024. On the basis of documents uploaded by respondent No.4 alongwith her application, she was awarded 05 marks for matriculation, 02 marks for higher education and 03 marks for belonging to same ward or in other words, total 10 marks were scored by her. Petitioner, on the other hand, was though given 03 marks for belonging to same ward and his total tally of marks were reflected as 03 marks, however, he having not uploaded his matriculation examination certificate which was the minimum qualification required for allotment of the shop, was held to be ineligible and accordingly, not even awarded 4 2026:HHC:15025 any marks under this heading. The fair price shop was allotted to respondent No.4 on 29.07.2024. Petitioner, who belongs to same ward where the shop is located, represented on 07.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) as to why he was not allotted the fair price shop and also questioned the eligibility of respondent No.4 qua allotment of shop. Pertinently, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that petitioner in this writ petition does not question the eligibility of respondent No.4 for the allotment of fair price shop in question. 5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, while applying for fair price shop, the petitioner had mentioned in his application (Annexure R-1) of his being matriculate; Therefore, respondent should have called for the matriculation certificate from the petitioner as it was because of some inadvertent mistake/ technical problem that the petitioner despite mentioning himself as a matriculate could not upload his such certificate alongwith application form. Admittedly, the petitioner had not uploaded matriculation certificate alongwith his online application. It is not in dispute that certificate uploaded by the petitioner alongwith his online application was that of his being 8th 5 2026:HHC:15025 pass. This being the admitted position, respondents cannot be faulted in not considering the candidature of the petitioner. The advertisement notice was very loud and clear that applicant had to be matriculate in order to apply for the shop. The notice in no uncertain terms provided that neither any application nor any document would be accepted offline/ by hand. All the documents including matriculation certificate alongwith application had to be uploaded within the stipulated period. Inspite of very clear terms & conditions, where matriculation examination certificate was the minimum required eligibility condition, the petitioner uploaded his middle standard examination certificate instead of matriculation certificate. The petitioner was required to be vigilant while applying for the fair price shop. It is not his case that terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement notice were vague or that he was not aware of the same. Petitioner will have to own the responsibility for his negligence. Respondent No.4 is running the shop pursuant to its allotment in her favour on 29.07.2024. Therefore, no case is made out for grant of relief as prayed for in the petition. In the given facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and same is accordingly dismissed. 6 2026:HHC:15025 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 06, 2026 Judge yogesh