JUDGMENT SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. Rule. Mr. Rashesh A. Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of Notice of Rule for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. H. R. Prajapati, learned Advocate, waives service of Notice of Rule for respondent No.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided today. 2. By preferring this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25-3-2011, made by the State Government whereby the order dated 27-10-2010, passed by the Collector has been set aside. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who belongs to the O.B.C. category, submitted an application in May, 2008, for allotment of a Government Fair Price Shop, pursuant to publication of Notification dated 19-4-2008. Respondent No.3, who belongs to the Open (Unreserved) Category, also made an application on 8-5-2008. As per the Notification, the Fair Price Shop was to be allotted to a candidate belonging to the Open (Unreserved) Category. By order dated 3-12-2008, respondent No. 1-Collector made an order allotting the Fair Price Shop to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, respondent No.3 challenged the same by filing an appeal to the State Government, which was numbered as Appeal No. 65 of 2008. By order dated 6-5-2010, the appeal was partly allowed and the matter was remanded to the Collector for fresh decision. The ground for remand was that the Collector had not taken into consideration the corrected mark-sheet of respondent No.3, which was available on record at the time of making the allotment order. After hearing the parties afresh, the Collector passed order dated 27-10-2010, maintaining his earlier decision of allotment of the Fair Price Shop in favour of the petitioner. This order was challenged by respondent No: 3 before the State Government, by filing Appeal No. 81 of 2010. By order dated 25-3-2011, the appeal of respondent No.3 has been allowed, and the order dated 27-10-2010, made by the Collector has been set aside, directing the Collector to carry out necessary proceedings regarding allotment of the Fair Price Shop in favour of respondent No.3. 4. Mr. By order dated 25-3-2011, the appeal of respondent No.3 has been allowed, and the order dated 27-10-2010, made by the Collector has been set aside, directing the Collector to carry out necessary proceedings regarding allotment of the Fair Price Shop in favour of respondent No.3. 4. Mr. Rajesh K. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner has made the following submissions : (a) The initial orders of the Collector dated 3-12-2008 and 27-10-2010 allotting the Fair Price Shop in favour of the petitioner, are just and proper considering that the petitioner possesses a higher educational qualification than respondent No.3, having obtained 65% marks in the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination (H.S.C. Examination), whereas respondent No. 3 has obtained 47.53 % in the said examination. (b) That the petitioner is an 'A.T.K.T.' candidate in the First Year of the B.A. examination, meaning thereby, that he has been' Allowed To Keep Term', whereas the result of respondent No.3 in the Second Year B.A. has been withheld. Considering the educational qualifications of the petitioner and respondent No.3, the petitioner is more meritorious and the Collector has rightly allotted the Fair Price Shop in his favour. (c) The petitioner belongs to the O.B.C. category and is unemployed. The impugned order dated 25-3-2011 made by the State Government, has the effect of cancelling the allotment of the shop made in favour of petitioner, and is unjust and unsustainable in law. At the time of making the application, respondent No.3 had submitted a mark-sheet in which the result of the Second Year B.A. examination is shown to be "withheld". As the corrected mark-sheet had not been produced along with the application, the Collector has rightly not considered it at the time of making the allotment of the Fair Price Shop. (d) The decision to allot the Fair Price Shop to the petitioner has not been taken by the Collector alone, but he has acted upon the recommendation of the Advisory Committee constituted for the purpose of scrutinizing the documents of the candidates; therefore, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Collector in allotting the Fair Price Shop to the petitioner. On the strength of the above submissions, it is prayed .that the impugned order dated 25-3-2011, passed by the State Government, be quashed and set aside, and the petition allowed. 5. Mr. On the strength of the above submissions, it is prayed .that the impugned order dated 25-3-2011, passed by the State Government, be quashed and set aside, and the petition allowed. 5. Mr. Rashesh A. Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader has supported the impugned order made by the State Government. It is submitted that the said order is just and proper, considering the fact that respondent No.3 has submitted the corrected mark-sheet of the Second Year B.A. examination to the Collector on 20-11-2008, which is much before the date of allotment of the Fair Price Shop, on 3-12-2008. The corrected marksheet makes it clear that respondent No. 3 has passed the Second Year B.A. examination in the Second Division. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, respondent No.3 has higher educational qualifications than the petitioner, who has only passed the H.S.C. Examination and has been "Allowed To Keep Term" (A.T.K.T.) in the First Year B.A. examination, without having passed the same. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has further submitted that by order dated 6-5-2010, the State Government, had remanded the matter to the Collector solely on the ground that the corrected mark-sheet of respondent No.3 had not been considered by him. However, the Collector has maintained his earlier order and not considered the corrected mark-sheet. The order dated 27-10-2010 made by the Collector, has therefore, rightly been set aside by the State Government. 6. Mr. H. R. Prajapati, learned Advocate for respondent No.3, has forcefully contended that respondent No.3 has higher educational qualifications than the petitioner, as is evident from the corrected mark-sheet issued by the University on 19-11-2008. The said mark-sheet was submitted to the Collector on 20-11-2008, which is much before the date of allotment of the Fair Price Shop, on 3-12-2008. However, the same has been totally overlooked and ignored by the Collector in spite of the matter having been remanded on this issue. The corrected mark-sheet is a vital document that has been ignored by both the Advisory Committee and the Collector, causing miscarriage of justice to respondent No.3, who is fully covered by the norms for allotment of Fair Price Shops laid down by the State Government in Circular dated 21-3-2007. It is stipulated therein that a person possessing the qualification of Second Year B. A. shall be preferred over a person who has passed the 12th Standard (H.S.C. Examination). It is stipulated therein that a person possessing the qualification of Second Year B. A. shall be preferred over a person who has passed the 12th Standard (H.S.C. Examination). The learned Advocate for respondent No.3 has contended that respondent No.3 fulfils the norms for allotment and the order dated 25-3-2011 of the State Government, being just and proper, does not deserve to be interfered with. On the strength of the above submissions, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition, contents of the impugned order and other documents on record. 8. It is not disputed that the main ground on which the Collector has made the allotment of the Government Fair Price Shop to the petitioner, is that the petitioner has obtained 65% marks in the H.S.C. Examination, whereas respondent No. 3 has obtained 47.53% marks in the said examination. What appears to have weighed with the Collector is that the result of respondent No.3 for the Second Year B.A. examination is shown to have been "withheld" as per the mark-sheet submitted at the time of making the application, whereas the petitioner has been "Allowed To Keep Term" (A.T.K.T.) in the Second Year B.A. This means that the petitioner has not passed the First Year B.A. Examination, but despite this fact, has been permitted to study in the Second Year B.A. It is an admitted fact that before the allotment of the Fair Price Shop on 3-12-2008, the concerned University has, on 19-11-2008, issued a corrected mark-sheet for the Second Year B.A. Examination to respondent No.3. The corrected mark-sheet has been submitted to the Collector on 20-11-2008. According to the corrected mark-sheet, respondent No.3 has passed the Second Year B.A. Examination in the Second Division, which makes him more meritorious and better qualified than the petitioner, who has only passed the H.S.C. Examination. The petitioner has failed to pass the First Year B.A. Examination, but has been "Allowed To Keep Term" in the Second Year of the B.A. degree course. This fact is not disputed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. 9. The petitioner has failed to pass the First Year B.A. Examination, but has been "Allowed To Keep Term" in the Second Year of the B.A. degree course. This fact is not disputed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. 9. The only issue that arises for consideration is whether the corrected mark-sheet which was not produced by respondent No. 3 at the time of making the application, but was produced before the allotment of the Fair Price Shop, should have been considered while making the allotment. 10. In this regard, it would be fruitful to refer to the settled legal position enunciated by the Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, 2005 (9) SCC 779 . The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow : "7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or mark-sheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement to benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. 8. This principle was explained and applied in Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew, 1980 (2) SCC 752 . The controversy here related to admission to a post-graduate course in medicine. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. 8. This principle was explained and applied in Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew, 1980 (2) SCC 752 . The controversy here related to admission to a post-graduate course in medicine. The relevant rule provided for addition of 10% marks if a candidate possessed a diploma in the relevant subject or subspecialty and this benefit could be given only if the candidate's success in the diploma course was brought to the knowledge of the Selection Committee before completion of selection in an authentic or acceptable manner. The prospectus provided that the attested copies of statement of marks and other documents should be attached with every application. Three such candidates were given admission who had not attached the certificate of having passed the diploma along with their applications. Their admission to post-graduate course was set aside by the High Court on the ground that their applications, wherein they claimed the benefit of diploma, were liable to be rejected as the requisite certificates had not been attached. This Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. reversed the judgment of the High Court and held that the admission to the candidates had rightly been given as they had in fact passed the diploma before the date fixed. The relevant parts of Paras 20 and 24 of the judgment, where this principle was highlighted are being reproduced below : (SCC pp. 762 & 763) "20. There is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in adding 10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn these extra 10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or before the last date for application, not later. Proof of having obtained a diploma is different from the factum of having got it. Has the candidate, in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of application for admission to the degree course? That is the primary question. It is prudent to produce evidence of the diploma along with the application, but that is secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the second. Academic excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the date of actual selection. It is prudent to produce evidence of the diploma along with the application, but that is secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the second. Academic excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma; the proof thereof sub-serves the factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor..... Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But if it is unshakably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still above board, is to make procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the essence. * * * 24. It is notorious that this formalistic, ritualistic, approach is unrealistic and is unwittingly traumatic, unjust and subversive of the purpose of the exercise. This way of viewing problems dehumanizes the administrative, judicial and even legislative processes in the wider perspective of law for man and not man for law. Much of hardship and harassment in administration flows from over-emphasis on the external rather than the essential. We think the Government and the selection committee rightly treated as directory (not mandatory) the mode of proving the holding of diplomas and as mandatory the actual possession of the diploma. In actual life, we know how exasperatingly dilatory it is to get copies of degrees, decrees and deeds, not to speak of other authenticated documents like mark lists from Universities, why, even bail orders from Courts and Government orders from public offices." (Emphasis in original) 9. In actual life, we know how exasperatingly dilatory it is to get copies of degrees, decrees and deeds, not to speak of other authenticated documents like mark lists from Universities, why, even bail orders from Courts and Government orders from public offices." (Emphasis in original) 9. The appellant undoubtedly belonged to reserved M.I. category. She comes from a very humble background, her father was only a Naik in the armed forces. He may not have noticed the mistake which had been committed by the Zilla Sainik Board while issuing the first certificate dated 29-6-2003. But it does not mean that the appellant should be denied her due when she produced a correct certificate at the stage of second counselling. Those who secured rank lower than the appellant have already been admitted. The view taken by the authorities in denying admission to the appellant is wholly unjust and illegal." (Emphasis supplied) 11. The principles of law laid down by the Apex Court are relevant and would be applicable to the facts of the present case. For the sake of clarity, the chronology of events may be noted. Respondent No. 3 made an application for allotment of the Fair Price Shop on 8-5-2008, annexing the mark-sheet for the Second Year B.A. Examination wherein it was mentioned, "result withheld". Subsequently, the University acknowledged the mistake and issued the corrected mark-sheet to respondent No.3, on 19-11-2008, wherein it is mentioned that respondent No.3 has passed the Second Year B.A. Examination in the Second Division. The correct mark-sheet was submitted to the Collector on 20-11-2008. The allotment of the Fair Price Shop has been made to the petitioner, on 3-12-2008. From the above sequence of events, it is clear that respondent No.3, has in fact, appeared in the Second Year B.A. Examination and has passed the same in the Second Division before he made the application. Merely because the University did not issue the correct mark-sheet to respondent No.3 in the first instance would not nullify his actual performance in the said examination. The correct educational qualification of respondent No.3 cannot be ignored and discarded, as the examination took place before the making of the application and the correct result relates back to the same. Merely because the University did not issue the correct mark-sheet to respondent No.3 in the first instance would not nullify his actual performance in the said examination. The correct educational qualification of respondent No.3 cannot be ignored and discarded, as the examination took place before the making of the application and the correct result relates back to the same. A mistake on the part of the University in issuing a wrong mark-sheet to respondent No. 3 in the first instance which has been corrected subsequently cannot be made a ground for denying the said respondent his just due, if he is otherwise eligible. The corrected mark-sheet would replace the incorrect one and ought to have been taken into consideration for all intents and purposes, insofar as the educational qualification of respondent No. 3 is concerned. The corrected mark-sheet had not been issued to respondent No. 3 at the time of making the application and could not have possibly been produced by him at the relevant point of time. The petitioner produced the mark-sheet that had been given to him, which was found to be incorrect. Once, the correct mark-sheet is produced, it cannot be ignored on the ground that it was not produced with the application. To do so would be to perpetuate the mistake made by the University in issuing a wrong mark-sheet, at the cost of respondent No.3. The correct and genuine educational qualification of respondent No.3 could not have been put to naught by the Collector in the manner that has been done. 12. The action of the Collector in ignoring the correct mark-sheet, apart from being hyper-technical, is illogical, unreasonable and unjust. Moreover, it is also contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, Jee (supra) and has rightly been set aside by the State Government. 13. As laid down by the Apex Court in the above-mentioned judgment, it is the factum of obtaining the qualification that is important and not merely the proof thereof. The case of respondent No. 3 is further fortified by the fact that the educational qualification of having passed the Second Year B.A. Examination has been obtained by him before making the application, and the corrected mark-sheet has been submitted to the Collector before the allotment of the Fair Price Shop was made. The case of respondent No. 3 is further fortified by the fact that the educational qualification of having passed the Second Year B.A. Examination has been obtained by him before making the application, and the corrected mark-sheet has been submitted to the Collector before the allotment of the Fair Price Shop was made. In addition thereto, considering the provisions of Circular dated 21-3-2007, which stipulate that a candidate who has passed the Second Year B.A. Examination shall be preferred over a candidate who has passed the 12th Standard examination, respondent No. 3 ought to have been preferred over the petitioner in view of his superior educational qualifications. 14. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion leaves no manner of doubt that the impugned order of the State Government dated 25-3-2011, whereby the appeal of respondent No.3 against the order of the Collector has been allowed, is just and proper. No ground is made out warranting interference from this Court. 15. The petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be rejected. It is, accordingly, rejected. Rule is discharged. Parties shall bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.