Himachal Pradesh High Court
Arti vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 1 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CWP No.4283 of 2022
Decided on: 1st September, 2023
.
__________________________________________________________
Arti
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
......Respondents
Coram
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting? No
rt
For the petitioner: Mr. Rajneesh K. Lal, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional
Advocate General with Mr. Rohit
Sharma, Deputy Advocate General,
for respondents No.1 to 5-State.
Mr. Suresh Singh Saini, Advocate vice
Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate, for
respondent No.6.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)
The petitioner has prayed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-
"(i) "To quash and set aside the clarification provided in the policy for engagement for Part Time Multi Task Workers in Govt. schools in H.P. specifically in Serial No.1 Clause 7 (iv) (i) 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2023 21:27:32 :::CIS -2-
in which the meaning of the term 'Family' has been given as 'Land Donor or his/her spouse and their children as being unconstitutional and arbitrary and against the meaning as .
provided in Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act and CCS Rules.
(ii) To award marks in favour of petitioner under the category "for candidates whose families have donated land for school 8 marks in view of the equality principle enshrined in Article 14 of and 16 of the Constitution of India.
(iii) To extend date of submission of applications rt for the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker in view of the changing of Rules of Games in the middle of the selection process so that the petitioner and other eligible applicants/ candidates may get equal opportunity of applying for the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker alongwith a required documents as clarified vide Annexure P-14."
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the Government issued the 'Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020', vide Annexure P-1, dated 16th July, 2020, which was amended from time to time and lastly on 11.03.2022.
Further case of the petitioner is that on the basis of recommendation dated 9th May, 2022, the Government ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2023 21:27:32 :::CIS -3- approved amendment in the Policy on 24.05.2022, whereby, Clause-7 of the said Policy was amended and the prescription of eight marks for the candidates whose families donated .
land for the School in Clause-7(iv) in the earlier Policy of 2020 was amended by confining the definition of family for a 'land donor or his/her spouse and their children'. The petitioner has come up in the instant Writ Petition assailing of the amendment dated 24.05.2022, Annexure P-14.
3. On 01.07.2022, this Court issued notice to rt the respondents to file reply and the matter was listed thereafter on various dates. On 13.12.2022 and on 19.04.2023, the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for the private respondent sought time to file reply. However, today, the learned counsel(s) for the parties, jointly represent that the instant matter is covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.4139 of 2022, titled as Surender Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 28.06.2022, which has attained finality and also the judgment in CWP No.4269 of 2022, titled as Jyoti Devi Versus State of H.P. and others and the connected matters, decided on 14.07.2023.
::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2023 21:27:32 :::CIS -4-Accordingly, with consent of parties, as aforesaid, the instant petition is disposed of.
4. The issue involved in the instant petition is .
no longer res integra in view of the judgments passed by this Court in catena of cases. It is pertinent to note that this Court in the case of Surender Singh (supra) upheld the amendment introduced on 24.05.2022. While deciding the of matter, it was held that the Rules of Games have not been changed by the aforesaid amendment; as the amendment rt is only clarificatory in nature and cannot be said to be bad in law.
5. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment dated 28.06.2022 in the case of Surender Singh (supra), the same was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).33066 of 2022 and the Hon'ble Apex Court declined to interfere in the impugned order passed by this Court and the Special Leave Petition (Civil) was dismissed, as per judgment dated 28.02.2023.
6. Additionally, this Court in CWP No.4269 of 2022, titled as Jyoti Devi Versus State of H.P. and others and the connected matters, decided on 14.07.2023 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2023 21:27:32 :::CIS -5- has dismissed the Writ Petitions in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Surender Singh's case (supra), which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave .
Petition (Civil), referred to above. The operative part of judgment passed by this Court in Jyoti Devi's case (supra) is reproduced here-in-below:-
"2. The petitioners by way of instant petitions, have of assailed Clause 7 (iv) of the "Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020" (for short, "Policy") as amended vide letter dated 24.05.2022 being rt discriminatory and arbitrary.
3. As per the amendment carried in Clause 7 (iv) of the Policy, the term "family" was restricted to include "Land Donor or His/Her Spouse and their Children".
4. The grievance of petitioners is that the restrictive meaning assigned to the term "family" is against the spirit of the Policy. It is submitted that the subsequent amendment in the Policy amounted to change of rules after start of game and, as such, was not permissible in law. As per petitioners, since the term "family" has been considered in larger perspective in various other local laws viz., the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, the purpose of the Policy is defeated by not considering the connotation of term "family" in similar manner.
::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2023 21:27:32 :::CIS -6-5. The question raised in all these petitions is no more res integra. This Court in a number of cases has already decided the issues raised in the present proceedings. Some of the judgments passed by this .
Court on the issue are Surender Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 4139 of 2022, decided on 28.06.2022, Balbir Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 4169 of 2022, decided on 29.06.2022 and Smt. Khimi Devi vs. State of H.P. of and others, CWP No. 4197 of 2022, decided on 30.06.2022. It has clearly been held that Clause 7
(iv) of the Policy only provided for grant of 8 (eight) rt marks to those candidates whose families have donated land for school. The term "families" as noticed above, had been used in general term. No details were provided as to who would be included in term "families". In view of this, the letter dated 24.05.2022 was held to be clarificatory in nature.
6. It has also been held that the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker was not a civil post and, as such, the Policy could not be said to have any semblance of rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Policy has been held to be an administrative measure of temporary nature. In this view of the matter, the clarification dated 24.05.2022 in the Policy was held to be legal and valid.
7. The issue that the term "family" as used in the Policy was discriminatory in view of the fact that in ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2023 21:27:32 :::CIS -7- other local legislations viz. the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 such term has been given expansive connotation, has also been decided and .
settled in the aforesaid judgments.
8. In Surender Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 4139 of 2022, the judgment passed by this Court was assailed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 33066 of 2022 and was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated of 28.02.2023 in following terms:
"Delay condoned. We do not see any valid rt reason to interfere with the impugned orders and hence, the special leave petitions are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
9. Thereafter, the review petitions were filed in Surender Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 4139 of 2022 and Balbir Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 4169 of 2022, which have also been dismissed.
10. Since, all the issues raised in these petitions, have already been finally adjudicated upon, there is no merit in the petitions and the same are dismissed. Pending application(s) if any, also stand disposed of."
7. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and the law laid down by this Court, which has been upheld by ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2023 21:27:32 :::CIS -8- the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil), referred to above, the challenge to Clause 7(iv) (i) in the communication dated 24.05.2022, Annexure P-14, fails.
.
Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed, being devoid of any merit, with no order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, are disposed of in view of above.
of (Ranjan Sharma) Judge September 01, 2023 rt (Bhardwaj) ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2023 21:27:32 :::CIS