Himachal Pradesh High Court
Uttam Ram vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 30 May, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1660 of 2023 Date of decision: 30.05.2025 Uttam Ram. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.
Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional
Advocate General, for
respondents No.1 to 6-State.
: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista and Mr.
Shivom Vashista, Advocates, for
respondent No.10.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Respondent No.10's appeal against petitioner's selection and appointment as Part-Time Multi Task Worker has been allowed by the Additional District Magistrate, Chamba. Petitioner feels aggrieved, hence this writ petition.
(i) Pursuant to the selection process undertaken by the official respondents, petitioner was selected and appointed as Part-Time Multi Task Worker at Government Middle School, Kalmala, Tehsil & District Chamba. Appointment order was issued in his favour on 28.07.2022. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2-
(ii) Respondent No.10 felt aggrieved against the selection and appointment of the petitioner. Accordingly, as per Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020, she filed an appeal on 02.09.2022 before the Additional District Magistrate, Chamba. The ground for assailing petitioner's appointment and selection was that the petitioner had been selected and appointed as Part-Time Multi Task Worker for Government Middle School, Kalmala but the school was located at Ward Logran; The petitioner is resident of Village Kalmala, therefore, he was not entitled to 8 marks which could have been allocated to the residents of Ward Logran, where the school was located. The petitioner could have been awarded only 6 marks.
(iii). The aforesaid appeal was allowed on 27.03.2023 (Annexure P-9). Marks allotted to the petitioner were ordered to be changed from 8 to 6. The result-sheet was accordingly directed to be amended.
(iv). The order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Chamba on 27.03.2023 would have resulted in petitioner losing his appointment as Part Time Multi Task -3- Worker as in that scenario, his total tally of marks would have gone down. Hence, he instituted this writ petition.
2. Vide order dated 03.04.2023 passed in this writ petition, the operation of impugned order dated 27.03.2023 was stayed. Pursuant to the aforesaid protection, petitioner is still continuing to serve as Part-Time Multi Task Worker at GMS Kalmala.
3. To a query of the Court as to why the petitioner did not take recourse to the remedy of appeal provided under Clause 19 of the Part-Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention to following addendum issued by the respondent-Education Department on 25.08.2022:-
"ADDENDUM In partial modification of this Department's Notification No.EDN-C-B(1)2/2019 dated 16th July, 2020 (as updated upto 11th March, 2022), the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to add "Rule-19 Appellate Authority" in the Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy, 2020 as under:
19. Appellate Authority:
The appeal in respect of complaints relating to PTMTW selection/appointment etc. should be made to the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of the district within 15 days of the selection/appointment. The appeal will be considered by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of the district and disposed off within 30 days from its receipt with suitable directions. If the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome, then he/she may file an appeal with the Director of Higher/Elementary Education, as the case may be, within 15 days from the decision of the -4- Additional District Magistrate (ADM). The appellate authority may dispose off the appeal within 60 days after hearing the appellant.
By Order Devesh Kumar, IAS Pr. Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh."
[Emphasis supplied] Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that Clause 19 inserted in the Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy, 2020 under the afore-extracted addendum, provides remedy of filing an appeal against the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate only to the complainant and not to the selected candidate, who as a result of the decision of the complaint remains unsuccessful.
Looking to the Clause 19 and the words used therein that "if the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome, then he/she may file an appeal with the Director of Higher/Elementary Education", there may be some substance in the grievance of the petitioner that he was prevented from filing further appeal to the Appellate Authority-the concerned Director against the impugned order of the Additional District Magistrate. The words used in Clause 19 'if the complainant is not satisfied', do leave room for ambiguity. In their place, the appropriate words should -5- have been such, whereby the party aggrieved with the outcome of the decision of Additional District Magistrate was given remedy for filing appeal. Because of ambiguous language used in the above clause, I am inclined to hear the petition on merits. However, the respondents through learned Additional Advocate General are directed to look into this aspect and take correctional measures for amendment of the aforesaid clause, so that the complainant as well as the aggrieved person, who could even be the selected candidate, who looses out as a result of the decision of the Appellate Authority, both get right to challenge the decision before the Director, Higher/Elementary Education as the case may be.
4. Coming back to merits of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention to the clarifications issued by the respondent-Education Department concerning the policy for engagement of Part- Time Multi Task Workers vide Annexure P-11 dated 24.05.2022. Relevant to context is Clause 5 of the clarification, which reads as under:-
"Sr. Issue Recommendation Remarks
No.
5. In some districts, due Candidates belonging In case a candidate is
to the non-availability to the same given marks, keeping in
of own building of a Ward/Panchayat in view the physical
school, the school is which the school has location of school in a
-6-
running a nearby been notified will be situation where a
school. In such a given marks for the school form some other
situation, how is a same Ward/ location but is existing
candidate to be given Panchayat. Although physically in a nearby
marks the school may be school due to non-
physically existing availability of
elsewhere due to non- accommodation in the
availability notified place, He/she
accommodation. will get benefit of two
schools while a
candidate belongs to a
place where a school
has been notified
physically does not
exist there without any
benefit under Distance
from the head. This
would be unfair."
As per afore-extracted clarifications, a candidate belonging to same Ward/Panchayat in which the school has been notified will be given marks for the same Ward/Panchayat, even though the school may be physically exiting elsewhere due to non-availability of accommodation. In the instant case, selection was made for the post of Part- Time Multi Task Worker for GMS Kalmala but the school was located at Logran. Petitioner is resident of Kalmala. The petitioner belongs to Kalmala and school for which he was being considered for appointment was notified for Kalmala. The petitioner, therefore, was rightly given 8 marks for belonging to the ward for which the school was notified though located at Logran. Under these circumstances, petitioner as well as respondent No.10, who is resident of -7- Logran, where the school was located, were entitled to 8 marks each. Accordingly no error was committed by the selection committee in giving 8 marks to the petitioner as well as to respondent No.10. Hence, the findings of Additional District Magistrate that the petitioner being resident of village Kalmala was not entitled for 8 marks as GMS Kalmala was located at Logran, are not in order being contrary to the clarifications issued by the respondents on 24.05.2022 (Annexure P-11). Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.03.2023 is quashed and set aside.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
30th May, 2025 Judge
(Pardeep)