Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma vs State Of Himachal on 28 June, 2022
Bench: Sabina, Satyen Vaidya
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 28th DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA,
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
CIVIL WRIT PETITIONS NO.4106 & 4108 OF 2022
Between:-
CWP NO.4106 OF 2022:
NAVEEN SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, SON OF
SH. DEV DUTT SHARMA, SON OF
SH. BHAG CHAND, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE LANA MIUN, TEHSIL
PACHHAD, DISTRICT SIRMOUR,
H.P. ....PETITIONER
(BY MR. SANJEEV BHUSHAN,
SR. ADVOCATE WITH
MR. RAKESH CHAUHAN,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO
THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
2. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION, HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA, H.P.
4. BLOCK ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION OFFICER, BLOCK
NARAG, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.
5. CHAIRMAN, SELECTION
::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2022 20:03:14 :::CIS
2
COMMITTEE OF PART TIME
MULTI TASK WORKERS-CUM-
SDM PACHHAD, DISTRICT
SIRMOUR, H.P. ....RESPONDENTS
(MR. ANIL JASWAL,
.
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL)
CWP NO.4108 OF 2022:
KAMAL KISHORE, AGED ABOUT
33 YEARS, SON OF SH.
RAJINDER SINGH, SON OF LATE
SH. BHEEM DUTT, R/O VILLAGE
KOT DHANGER, P.O.
THOURNIWER, TEHSIL
RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMOUR,
H.P. r ....PETITIONER
(BY MR. SANJEEV BHUSHAN,
SR. ADVOCATE WITH
MR. RAKESH CHAUHAN,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO
THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
2. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION, HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA, H.P.
4. BLOCK ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION OFFICER, BLOCK
RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMOUR,
H.P.
5. CHAIRMAN, SELECTION
COMMITTEE OF PART TIME
MULTI TASK WORKERS-CUM-
SDM RAJGARH, DISTRICT
SIRMOUR, H.P. ....RESPONDENTS
(MR. ANIL JASWAL,
::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2022 20:03:14 :::CIS
3
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL)
.
______________________________________________________
These Writ Petitions coming on for admission this
day, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina, passed the following:
ORDER
Vide this order, above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of, as the question involved in both the petitions is the same.
2. Petitioners have filed the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief(s):-
"i. That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued and clause 4(i) i.e. term of family will be "land donor or his/her spouse and the children" as introduced vide Annexure P-4 dated 24th May, 2022 may very kindly be quashed and set aside.
ii. That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant 8 marks to the petitioner against column (iv) of the notification dated 11th March, 2022 as the family has donated land for the same ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2022 20:03:14 :::CIS 4 school where the post of part time multi task worker has been advertised. iii. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to complete the selection .
process after granting 8 marks to the petitioner on the count that the family has donated land, in the interest of law and justice."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the grandfather of the petitioners had donated land for construction of schools. Hence, the petitioners were entitled to be granted eight marks in terms of the Notification dated 11.03.2022 (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel has further submitted that the term 'family' has been defined differently relating to a person living in extreme indigent condition and a person who submits BPL Category Certificate. For the said categories, family would be as per Family Register, whereas, the term 'family' for donation of land for schools has been restricted to land donor or his/her spouse and their children.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that these petitions are liable to be disposed of in terms of the order dated 15.06.2022, passed in CWP No.3728 of 2022, titled Smt. Bhawani Devi versus State of Himachal ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2022 20:03:14 :::CIS 5 Pradesh & others. The operative part of the said order reads as under:-
"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 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 implemented the Policy, have defined term 'family' vide ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2022 20:03:14 :::CIS 6 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 contention 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 term. 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 clarificatiory in nature and thus cannot be said to be bad in law.
7. 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."
5. Petitioners being the grandsons of the donors of the land, do not fall within the definition of 'family' as per ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2022 20:03:14 :::CIS 7 Clarification dated 24.05.2022. It is for the respondents to fix the criteria for awarding marks for different categories.
6. So far as definition of a person living in extreme .
indigent condition is concerned, the family is taken as per the Family Register. However, as per Clarification dated 24.05.2022, the term 'family' will be land donor or his/her spouse and their children under Clause 7 of the Policy, vis-à-
vis, candidates whose families have donated land for schools.
7. The respondents, in their wisdom, have clarified the term 'family', vis-à-vis, families who have donated land for schools. This Court cannot substitute the meaning of family instead of the definition given in Clarification dated 24.05.2022.
8. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
( Sabina )
Judge
( Satyen Vaidya )
June 28, 2022 Judge
(Yashwant)
::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2022 20:03:14 :::CIS