Himachal Pradesh High Court
Puniya Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 15 June, 2023
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 2593 of 2023.
.
Date of decision: 15.06.2023.
Puniya Devi .....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
.....Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Ms. Archna Dutt and Ms. Ranjana
Pathania, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate
General with Mr. I.N. Mehta,
Mr.Yashwardhan Chauhan, Senior
Additional Advocate Generals, Mr.
Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Sharmila
Patial, Additional Advocate
Generals and Mr. Rajat Chauhan,
Law Officer, for respondent Nos. 1
to 4.
Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Karun Negi,
Advocate, for respondent No.5.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2023 20:31:14 :::CIS 2 "i) That the appointment and selection of respondent No.5 as Part Time Multi Task Worker in Govt. Primary .
School Majhatharu in Ward No.2, Gram Panchayat Haripur, District Solan contained in Annexure P-5 and impugned order dated 24.04.2023 contained in Annexure P-9 may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari.
ii) That the respondents No.1 to 4 may kindly be directed to allow to perform her duties as Part Time Multi Task Worker in Govt. Primary School Majhatharu in Ward No. 2, Gram Panchayat Haripur, District Solan, being more meritorious desirous than respondent No.5 by issuing a writ of mandamus."
2. Aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner as Part Time Multi Task Worker in Government Primary School, Majhatharu, Education Block, Dharampur, District Solan, private respondent filed CWP No. 4080 of 2022 before this Court and the same was disposed of on 25.11.2022 with a direction to the private respondent to approach the Additional District Magistrate, (ADM) Solan, by way of an appeal in terms of Clause 19 of the Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy, 2020. The private respondent accordingly filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. ADM, Solan. The objection raised by the private respondent was that marks had not been awarded to her by the Selection Committee in the category of widow certificate.
::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2023 20:31:14 :::CIS 33. As per the report of B.E.E.O., it was found that private respondent had infact attached the widow certificate dated .
18.04.2022 issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Haripur, which was not considered by the Selection Committee, as according to them, the same was not issued by the competent authority i.e. the concerned Block Development Officer. However, thereafter, private respondent produced a valid widow certificate issued by the competent authority before the ADM, Solan and on this basis, private respondent was awarded marks which totalled upto 28 marks as against 27 marks obtained by the selected candidate. The ADM, Solan, found the objection raised by the private respondent to be relevant and accordingly accepted the appeal.
4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the ADM, Solan, the petitioner filed second appeal under Rule 19 before the Director of Elementary Education, however, the same was dismissed as the 2nd Appellate Authority also found that private respondent had submitted a widow certificate counter-signed by Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Haripur, and the death certificate of her husband well within time before the Selection Committee which by itself was sufficient to at least give a thought that private respondent was a widow.
::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2023 20:31:14 :::CIS 45. Aggrieved by the orders passed by both the authorities below, the petitioner has filed the instant petition still harping upon .
the fact that private respondent was not entitled to any marks as she had failed to produce the widow certificate.
6. We, however, find no merit in this contention as the findings recorded by both the authorities below are pure finding of fact and cannot in any manner be termed to be irregular or illegal much less perverse.
7. It is not in dispute that the private respondent was possessing a certificate to the effect that she is a widow, that too, issued by the competent authority. Once that be so, obviously, the authorities below were bound to consider the same, more particularly, in light of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Justice Satyen Vaidya) was a member, in CWP No. 3837 of 2022, case titled Shanti Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 05.08.2022, wherein it was observed as under:
"6. Respondents have disputed the fact that the petitioner had failed to attach Certificate (Annexure P-3) issued by the competent authority, declaring her widow, whereas the petitioner has alleged that she had placed said Certificate on record at the time of tendering documents. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that there was no reason why the petitioner did not attach the necessary documents at the time ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2023 20:31:14 :::CIS 5 of tendering documents. Be that as it may, the situation that emerges is that the petitioner does have the Certificate to .
the effect that she is a widow issued by the competent authority."
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
r Judge
(Satyen Vaidya)
Judge
15th June, 2023.
(krt)
::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2023 20:31:14 :::CIS