Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Tej Singh vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 29 June, 2022
Bench: Sabina, Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 29th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA,
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4174 of 2022
BETWEEN:
SH. TEJ SINGH, S/O SH. JAI SINGH, R/O VILLAGE
JAGYALDU, P.O. DABRI, TEHSIL AND DISTT.
SHIMLA-171018,H.P.
........PETITIONER
(BY MR. B.C. NEGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR.
ABHISHEK SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (EDUCATION)
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION, HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-1.
.........RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ASHWANI K.SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL)
____________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for admission before notice
this day Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, passed the
following :-
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2022 20:02:38 :::CIS
ORDER
.
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 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 grandfather of the petitioner namely late Sh. Atma Ram, S/o late Sh. Thakur Dass on 13.12.1957 had donated land to the Government Primary School Dabri, Tehsil & District Shimla, H.P. 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-5. The objective of the scheme is as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2022 20:02:38 :::CIS(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 24 th May, 2022. A perusal of the clarification No. 4 reveals that term 'family' will be "land owner or his/her spouse or 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 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2022 20:02:38 :::CIS 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.
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2022 20:02:38 :::CIS7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no ground for interference is made out. The instant .
petition is dismissed.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sabina)
r Judge
( Satyen Vaidya )
Judge
29th June, 2022
(sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2022 20:02:38 :::CIS