Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shyama Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 17 September, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13643 of 2024 Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 __________________________________________________________ .
Smt. Shyama Devi .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ....Respondents
__________________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State, for the respondent-State.
Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Precisely, the question, which needs to be determined in the case at hand is that "whether the daughter-in-law is entitled to eight marks, in lieu of land donated by her in-laws for construction of school in terms of Part Time Multiple Task Worker Policy notified by Government of Himachal Pradesh, vide notification dated 16.07.2020 (Annexure P-1)?"
2. In nutshell, grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Nishant Khidtta, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that petitioner herein was wrongly denied eight marks in lieu of land donated by her in-laws for construction of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2025 21:27:14 :::CIS -2-school. Though petitioner herein applied for the post of Part Time Multiple Task Worker in terms of advertisement, but she failed to secure place in the merit list, as a result thereof, she was not offered .
appointment against the post in question. Had selection committee granted eight marks to the petitioner in lieu of land donated by her in-
laws for school, she would have got an opportunity to work as Part Time Multiple Task Worker.
3. Parties are ad idem that issue raised in the instant proceedings is no longer res integra, rather stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3728 of 2022, titled as Smt. Bhawani Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., wherein Notification dated 24.05.2022 defining the term "family" came to be upheld. In afore judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court upheld notification dated 24.05.2022, wherein term "family" came to be clarified that the term 'family' will be "land owner or his/her spouse or children. Since in afore definition of family, daughter-in-law never came to be included, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while not granting eight marks to the petitioner in lieu of land donated by her in-laws for construction of school. Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Petitioner has filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the notification dated 24th May, 2022 defining the word 'family' and it has been prayed that the petitioner may be granted eight marks as per Clause 7 of the Part Time Multi Task Workers ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2025 21:27:14 :::CIS -3- Policy, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the policy) under the head "For candidates whose families have donated land for school".
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that father-in- law of the petitioner had registered a Gift Deed donating land to the .
Government Primary School Kotla, District Mandi. Hence, the petitioner falls within the category of candidates, whose family had donated land for school and was entitled for grant of eight marks under Clause 7 of the Policy. The clarification issued by the respondents by restricting the meaning of term 'family' to be land donor or his/her spouse and their children was liable to be set-aside. The objective of the policy was to provide employment to the eligible candidates in schools.
3. Notification has been issued with regard to the "Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020". The said notification has been placed on record as Annexure P-1/P-2. The objective of the scheme is as under:-
r (a) To provide Part Time Multi Task Worker in all the Schools in Himachal Pradesh through creation of new posts.
(b) To encourage decentralization of powers by empowering the SMCs in the effective running of Govt.
Schools.
(c) To provide an opportunity for the eligible unemployed candidates to earn honorarium at Local level.
4. As per clause 7 of the policy, selection criteria/marks liable to be awarded to the candidates have been enumerated. So far as candidates whose families have donated land for schools are to be awarded eight marks.
5. Some clarifications were sought on different issues by various quarters with regard to the allocation of marks and validity of various certificates/documents, etc. In this regard, the impugned clarification was issued on 24th May, 2022. A perusal of the said clarification reveals that a Committee had been constituted to examine the issues raised during recruitment process for engagement of part time multi task workers. On the basis of the recommendation of the Committee a clarification was issued on 24th May, 2022. A perusal of the clarification No. 4 reveals that term 'family' will be "land owner or his/her spouse or ::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2025 21:27:14 :::CIS -4- children". The said clarification has been issued by the respondents with a view to achieve the purpose of the scheme. This Court while exercising extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in the meaning given by the .
respondents vis-à-vis term 'family'. As per the term 'family' defined for the purpose of the policy, petitioner does not fall within the definition of family. The respondents in their wisdom, with a view to effectively implement the Policy, have defined term 'family' vide impugned recommendation dated 24th May, 2022. There is nothing on record to suggest that the definition of term 'family' has been given for any mala fide or extraneous consideration.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the clarification issued on 24.05.2022 is otherwise bad in law as it amounts to change in rules after initiation of selection process. The contentions so raised by the petitioner is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that Clause 7(iv) of the Policy only provided for grant of eight marks to those candidates whose families have donated land for school. The term "families", as noticed above, had been used in general terms. No details were provided as to who would be included in the term"families". In view of this, it cannot be said that there is any change in the rules after initiation of recruitment process. The amendment is only clarificatory in nature and thus cannot be said to be bad in law.
4. Since definition of family as given in Notification dated 24.05.2022 (Annexure P-2), which has been upheld by Division Bench of this Court in judgment detailed hereinabove, clearly provides that family means the land owner or his/her spouse or their children, petitioner herein, who happens to be daughter-in-law of the land owner, certainly cannot claim eight marks in lieu of land donated by her in-laws for construction of school.
::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2025 21:27:14 :::CIS -5-5. Consequently, in view of the above as well as law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Bhawani Devi (supra), present petition fails and dismissed accordingly being devoid of merit. Pending .
application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
September 17, 2025
(sunil)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 18/09/2025 21:27:14 :::CIS