Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 258 (HP)

Raj Kumar v. State of H. P.

2025-03-03

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioner feels aggrieved against the rejection of his appeal against selection and appointment of respondent No.7 as Part Time Multi Task Worker in Government Primary School Banoli-II, Education Block Sihunta, District Chamba, H.P. Petitioner’s first appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate, Chamba on 19.06.2023. His further appeal was dismissed on 30.10.2023 by the Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner andconsidered the case file. 3. The case set up is that the :- The Selection Committee selected respondent No.7 on 13.09.2022 as Part Time Multi Task Worker at Government Primary School Banoli-II, Education Block Sihunta, District Chamba, H.P. Name of the petitioner, was kept in the waiting list. Feeling aggrieved against his non- selection to the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker, he preferred an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Chamba on 22.09.2022. The grounds taken were that the petitioner was handicapped, suffering from 40% permanent disability. He was higher in age than respondent No.7. There being tie in the marks scored by the petitioner & respondent No.7 and petitioner being higher in age, he should have been selected and appointed against the said post. Therefore, selection of respondent No.7 being illegal was liable to be set aside. Learned Additional District Magistrate, Chamba wrongly rejected petitioner’s appeal. Confirmation of this order by the Second Appellate Authority on 30.10.2023 was also illegal. 4. Consideration 4(i) ‘Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy’ notified vide Annexure P-1 (as updated upto 11.03.2022) laid down following selection criteria for awarding marks:- 7. Selection Criteria/Marks (as amended up to date) i) The selection committee shall judge the suitability of the candidates purely on merit. The Chairman/ Member Secretary of the committee will keep complete record of the selection process. ii) The selection committee shall hold counseling by calling all the eligible candidates. iii) Preference will be given to candidates who are from families without any member in Govt. service. iv) The selection will be purely specific to a particular school only. v) In the selection process marks shall be awarded to the candidates out of 38. ii) The selection committee shall hold counseling by calling all the eligible candidates. iii) Preference will be given to candidates who are from families without any member in Govt. service. iv) The selection will be purely specific to a particular school only. v) In the selection process marks shall be awarded to the candidates out of 38. The distribution of marks shall be as under: - i. Distance from Schools (08 Marks) (Certificate to be issued by Panchayat Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat for rural areas and Executive Officer of Urban Local Bodies for urban areas) For candidates: (a) From the same ward of the GramPanchayat/Urban Local Body inwhich school is situated 08 Marks (b) From the other wards of the GramPanchayat/Urban Local Body in which school is situated 06 Marks (c) From the adjoining contiguousGram Panchayat/Urban Local Body in which school is situated 02 Marks ii. Education Qualifications (08 Marks) If Class 5th passed 05 Marks If Class 8th passed 08 Marks iii. Allocation to various categories: (08 Marks) (a) Widows/Orphans/ Persons with benchmark disabilities 08 Marks (b) Person living in extreme indigentconditions 05 Marks (c) Women deserted by husbands 03 Marks iv. For candidates whose families have Donated land for school 08 Marks v. Candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/BPL 03 Marks vi. Candidates belonging to unemployed Families 03 Marks Total 38 Marks” Respondent-State issued further clarifications to the policy for engagement for Part Time Multi Task Workers in Government schools on 24.05.2022 (part of Annexure P-1). Relevant portion from the clarifications reads as under:- Sr. No. Issue Recommendations Remarks 1. To define "Person Living in Extreme Indigent Conditions" The Committee recommends the following criteria for a person living in extreme Indigent conditions: * Family should not have Pucca House. * Family should not have any vehicle (Family will be as per family register). * Family Income from all sources should not be more than Rs. 35,000 per annum (Income from all sources including House or any other property Business, Salary, Pension. Wages, Self-employment, Employment on Honorarium Basis or other sources). * Land holding should not be more than 1 acre. Keeping in view the criteria laid down for Indigent person as per Department of Revenue Notification No., Rev.B.A.(3)-1/2004- Vol-I dated 09.01.2012 2. 35,000 per annum (Income from all sources including House or any other property Business, Salary, Pension. Wages, Self-employment, Employment on Honorarium Basis or other sources). * Land holding should not be more than 1 acre. Keeping in view the criteria laid down for Indigent person as per Department of Revenue Notification No., Rev.B.A.(3)-1/2004- Vol-I dated 09.01.2012 2. Whether a Candidate who submits a BPL Category Certificate as well as a Certificate regarding Living in Extreme Indigent Conditions has to be given marks for both the certificates or for only one of the two certificates. As per clause 7 iii (b) of the policy, "person living in extreme indigent conditions" is to be awarded 05 marks. As per clause 7 (v), a candidate belonging to SC, ST, OBC, BPL will be awarded 03 marks. Hence, the committee was of the view that a person having both these certificates has to be awarded marks for both. As per provisions of PTMTW Policy amended on 11.03.2022. 3. As per clause 7 of PTMTW Policy, preference will be given to candidates who are from families without any member in government Service. However in a situation where two or more candidates secure equal aggregate a marks during the selection process and there is a tie, what will be the criteria to resolve such a situation. In the case of a tie. preference will be given to a candidate who is from a family without any member in Government Service. However, in a situation where both all the candidates having equal marks are from families without any member in Government Service, the candidate coming from a family having lower income will be given preference. In case the income of families of two candidates is still the same, then in such a situation the candidate higher in age will be given preference. 4(ii) In the instant case, admittedly, petitioner and respondent No.7 had scored 28 marks each. In accordance with Clause 3 of the clarifications issued by the respondent- State on 24.05.2022, in case of tie, preference was to be given to the candidate who is from a family without any member in Government service. Admittedly, petitioner as well as respondent No.7 satisfied the above condition. They both are from the families without any member in Government service. Admittedly, petitioner as well as respondent No.7 satisfied the above condition. They both are from the families without any member in Government service. As per clarification dated 24.05.2022, in a situation where both/all the candidates have equal marks and are from the families without any members in Government service, the candidate coming from a family having lower income, is to be given preference. It is only in case income of two families is same, that the candidate higher in age is to be given preference. The First Appellate Authority as well as the Second Appellate Authority have found from the record that the petitioner had not furnished his family income certificate and, therefore, no comparison between the family income of the petitioner and respondent No.7 could be drawn. Accordingly, petitioner’s appeals were dismissed by the First and Second Appellate Authorities. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner being higher in age is to be given preference in view of tie in the marks scored by the petitioner and respondent No.7, does not carry any substance in view of the clarifications issued by the respondent-State on 24.05.2022 in the policy for engagement for Part Time Multi Task Workers. The question of considering the age would have come only in case the family income of both the candidates was same. Admittedly, the petitioner had not furnished his family income certificate either at the time of applying for the post in question or even at the time of filing his appeal against the selection and appointment respondent No.7. This certificate has not been enclosed even with this petition. Under the selection criteria /marks laid down in the policy, 5 marks have been allocated for ‘persons living in extreme indigent conditions’ and as per clarifications one of the requirements to fall under ‘persons living in extreme indigent conditions’ is that family income from all sources should not be more than Rs. 35,000/- per annum’. Petitioner having failed to furnish his income certificate, therefore, cannot be permitted to contend that he being higher in age should have been selected/offered appointment. Terms and conditions of the policy and the clarifications issued by the respondent-State on 24.05.2022 are not even subject matter of challenge in this petition. Petitioner having participated under these terms and conditions, was under an obligation to furnish his income certificate in support of his appeal. Terms and conditions of the policy and the clarifications issued by the respondent-State on 24.05.2022 are not even subject matter of challenge in this petition. Petitioner having participated under these terms and conditions, was under an obligation to furnish his income certificate in support of his appeal. Having failed to do so, learned Authorities were justified in dismissing his appeals. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.