Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jyoti Devi vs State Of H.P. And Others on 14 July, 2023
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4269 of 2022 a/w connected matters.
Reserved on: 07.07.2023 Decided on: 14.07.2023 .
__________________________________________________________
1. CWP No. 4269 of 2022 Jyoti Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
2. CWP No. 8180 of 2021 Harsh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
3. CWP No. 3951 of 2022 Asha Devi ...Petitioner r Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents 4. CWP No. 3954 of 2022 Santoshi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents 5. CWP No. 3958 of 2022 Kaushalya Kumari ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents 6. CWP No. 3963 of 2022 Sunil Dutt ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents 7. CWP No. 3979 of 2022 Seema Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents 8. CWP No. 3996 of 2022 Shivani ...Petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2023 20:33:43 :::CIS 2 Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents 9. CWP No. 3998 of 2022 Nina ...Petitioner Versus .
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
10. CWP No. 4105 of 2022
Atma Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
11. CWP No. 4187 of 2022
Varsha Kumari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
12. CWP No. 4279 of 2022
Chamna Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
13. CWP No. 4281 of 2022
Ashok Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
14. CWP No. 4282 of 2022
Pariksha ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
15. CWP No. 4360 of 2022
Saif Ali ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
16. CWP No. 4368 of 2022
Surinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
17. CWP No. 4369 of 2022
Sunita Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
18. CWP No. 4406 of 2022
::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2023 20:33:43 :::CIS
3
Meenakshi Kumari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
19. CWP No. 4407 of 2022
.
Promila ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
20. CWP No. 4445 of 2022
Vikash Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
21. CWP No. 4697 of 2022
Sanjay Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
22. CWP No. 4955 of 2022
Ajay Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
23. CWP No. 4957 of 2022
Bodh Raj ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
24. CWP No. 5042 of 2022
Chaman ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
25. CWP No. 5593 of 2022
Anita Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
26. CWP No. 5595 of 2022
Pushap Raj ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
27. CWP No. 5954 of 2022
Seema Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2023 20:33:43 :::CIS
4
28. CWP No. 6373 of 2022
Usha Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
29. CWP No. 6527 of 2022
.
Beli Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
30. CWP No. 7190 of 2022
Naro Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
31. CWP No. 7191 of 2022
Vikas Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
32. CWP No. 7192 of 2022
Liyakat Ali
r ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
33. CWP No. 9086 of 2022
Geeta Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
34. CWP No. 660 of 2023
Neelam Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
35. CWP No. 2456 of 2023
Mukesh Kumar and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
36. CWP No. 3216 of 2023
Santosh Kumari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
_______________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2023 20:33:43 :::CIS 5 1 Whether approved for reporting? No _______________________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, Mr. Servedaman Rathore, Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Mr. H. .
S. Rana, Mr. Rajneesh K. Lal, Mr.Atul Kumar, Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Mr.Anil Kumar Manget, Mr. Onkar Jairath, Mr.Shubham Sood, Mr. Sat Prakash, Mr. Suresh Saini, Mr. Varun Chauhan, Mr. Hitesh Thakur, Mr. Atharv Sharma, Ms. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, Mr. Prashant Sharma, Mr. H. S. Rangra, Mr. Goldy Kumar and Mr.Varun Rana, Advocates, for the respective petitioner(s).
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. r Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate Generals, Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for the respondents/State.
Mr. Owais Khan Pathan, Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. Vishal Panwar, Mr. Nimish Gupta, Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Mr. H.S. Rana & Mr. A.S. Rana, Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore and Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Advocates, for the respective respondents.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge All these petitions are being decided by a common judgment as identical questions of facts and law are involved.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2023 20:33:43 :::CIS 62. The petitioners by way of instant petitions, have 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 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.
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.
::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2023 20:33:43 :::CIS 7Some 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. 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) 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.
::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2023 20:33:43 :::CIS 87. The issue that the term "family" as used in the Policy was discriminatory in view of the fact that in 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 28.02.2023 in following terms:
"Delay condoned.
We do not see any valid 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 ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2023 20:33:43 :::CIS 9 the petitions and the same are dismissed. Pending application(s) if any, also stand disposed of.
.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge 14th July, 2023. (Satyen Vaidya) (GR) Judge r to ::: Downloaded on - 15/07/2023 20:33:43 :::CIS