Six Applications, Three Slots
A block office is screening households for the state rural livelihoods mission's one-time enterprise loan window. The district circular in force lays down five conditions: the applicant must be a woman aged 18–59 who has resided in the block for at least three years; household income must be below ₹1.2 lakh a year; the household must not own more than 0.5 hectare of irrigated land, nor any four-wheeler (two-wheelers are exempt); no household member may be in permanent government service; and a woman who already holds a loan under this window is not eligible a second time. Income certificates must be dated within twelve months; if older, provisional approval is permitted provided a fresh certificate is filed within 60 days. The block has a target of three approvals this quarter, and a waitlist already holding two verified applications.
1. Classify each of the six applicants below as eligible, provisionally eligible, or not eligible, citing the specific condition that decides the case. | Applicant | Age | Residence in block | Household income | Irrigated land | Vehicles | Other | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | Malati | 34 | 7 years | ₹96,000 | 0.3 ha | motorcycle | already holds a loan under this window | | Rupali | 41 | 2 years 4 months | ₹1.05 lakh | none | none | - | | Anjali | 17 (18 in four months) | 11 years | ₹80,000 | 0.6 ha | none | - | | Sabita | 52 | 20 years | ₹1.18 lakh | 0.4 ha | none | son is a permanent government schoolteacher, listed on her ration card | | Junali | 29 | 5 years | ₹1.15 lakh | 0.2 ha | motorcycle | income certificate dated 14 months ago | | Bharati | 58 | 12 years | ₹1.19 lakh | exactly 0.5 ha | none | - |
Read the worked answer
| Applicant | Outcome | Deciding condition |
|---|---|---|
| Malati | Not eligible | Second-loan bar: she already holds a loan under this window. Every other condition is satisfied, so the bar is the sole ground. |
| Rupali | Not eligible | Three-year residence not met (2 years 4 months). Time-barred, not a permanent disqualification - she should be told the date from which she becomes eligible. |
| Anjali | Not eligible | Two independent grounds: she is 17 (condition: 18–59), and the household holds 0.6 ha irrigated, above the 0.5 ha ceiling. Record both, since remedying one would not help. |
| Sabita | Not eligible on the present record | A household member is in permanent government service. This turns on whether her son is in her household; the ration-card entry says he is, so the bar applies unless she rebuts it. |
| Junali | Provisionally eligible | All five substantive conditions are met (income ₹1.15 lakh is below ₹1.2 lakh; 0.2 ha; two-wheeler exempt). The certificate is 14 months old, so provisional approval with a fresh certificate within 60 days. |
| Bharati | Eligible | Age 58 is within 18–59; income ₹1.19 lakh is below the ceiling; land is exactly 0.5 ha, and the rule bars more than 0.5 ha, so she qualifies. |
The two boundary cases carry the marks: "exactly 0.5 ha" is inside the rule, and "14 months" is a procedural defect, not a substantive disqualification. Only one clean approval and one provisional approval emerge from this batch.
2. Given the quarterly target of three approvals, the two verified waitlisted applications, and the results above, set out the order of action and justify how Junali's case is counted.
Read the worked answer
Sequence.
- The two verified waitlisted applicants take slots 1 and 2. They are verified and dated earlier; passing over them for newer files would be arbitrary and vulnerable to challenge.
- Bharati takes slot 3 and is approved outright - she is the only unconditionally eligible applicant on today's list.
- Junali is recorded as provisionally approved, dated today, and entered on the provisional queue in date order.
Why Junali is not counted against the target now. A provisional approval is conditional and lapses if the certificate is not filed in 60 days. Counting it toward a quarterly target would let the block report a number that can silently become false, and it would consume a slot that a fully verified applicant could use. Conversely, refusing to register her at all would be worse: the 60-day clock exists precisely so that a procedural defect is not treated as a rejection, and her substantive eligibility is not in doubt.
Controls to record. (a) Date-stamp the provisional entry so she cannot be overtaken by later applicants. (b) Diary the 60-day expiry. (c) If a fourth verified application arrives this quarter, the block should seek a revised target rather than displace Bharati or reorder the waitlist.
3. Sabita argues that her son's government job is irrelevant because he lives separately and supports himself. How should the office respond, and what general principle governs?
Read the worked answer
Response. The operative word in the circular is household, not family. Her son appears on her ration card, which is the ordinary evidence of a common household, so on the present record the bar applies. But the finding is evidential, not moral: if she produces a separate ration card, a separate address and evidence of a separate kitchen, the household test would be re-applied and she could qualify without any change to the rule.
Procedure. Issue a written query specifying the exact ground and the evidence required, with a stated deadline - not an oral refusal at the counter. An applicant cannot rebut a ground she has never been shown.
General principle. Eligibility rules that use relational words (household, dependent, member) are decided by evidence of fact, and the burden of producing that evidence sits with the applicant only after the ground of objection has been disclosed. Two failures to avoid: silently rejecting on an unstated ground, and informally waiving a written rule for a sympathetic case. The first denies natural justice; the second converts a rule into a discretion and makes the waitlist meaningless.