Himachal Pradesh High Court
Akshay Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 2 April, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
( 2025:HHC:8738 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7648 of 2023 Decided on: April 02 , 2025 Akshay Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 6/State. Mr. Vinod Kumar Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 8.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner remained unsuccessful in the selection process for appointment as Part Time Multi Task Worker in Government Primary School Baihatna, P.O. Tritha, Tehsil Dalhousie, District Chamba. Respondent No. 8 was selected as Part Time Multi Task Worker in the aforesaid school. Petitioner's appeal against the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
( 2025:HHC:8738 ) 2 selection & appointment of respondent No. 8 as Part Time Multi Task Worker was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate, Chamba on 27.03.2023. Petitioner's second appeal was also dismissed by the Director of Elementary Education-cum-2nd Appellate Authority, Shimla on 30.05.2023. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner has instituted this writ petition.
2. Heard & considered the case file.
3. Petitioner alongwith other candidates participated in a selection process for the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker in GPS Baihatna, Education Block Banikhet, District Chamba. Petitioner appeared for interview for the said post on 24.06.2022. The Selection Committee selected respondent No. 8 as Part Time Multi Task Worker. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner had been adjudged first in the merit but was rejected on the ground that he had failed in the physical ability test; That such recourse was not open to the respondents; Petitioner having stood first in the merit was liable to be selected and appointed as Part Time Multi Task Worker.
4. No doubt petitioner stood first in the merit list, but his such placement was on the basis of marks assigned to him in terms of the Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020. As per this Policy ( 2025:HHC:8738 ) 3 as amended on 11.3.2022, total 38 marks are allocated in the selection process as under: -
i. Distance from Schools (08) marks (Certificate to be issued by Panchayat Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat for rural area and Executive Officer of Urban Local Bodies for urban areas)
(a) From the same ward of 08 Marks the Gram Panchayat/ Urban Local Body in which school is situated.
(b) From the other wards 06 Marks
of the Gram Panchayat/Urban
Local Body in which school is
situated
(c) From the adjoining 02 Marks
contiguous Gram
Panchayat/Urban Local Body
in which school is situated
ii. Education Qualifications (08 Marks)
If Class 5th passed 05 Marks
If Class 8th passed 08 Marks
iii. Allocation to various (08 Marks)
categories:
(a) Widows/Orphans/ Persons 08 Marks with benchmark disabilities
(b) Person living in extreme 05 Marks indigent conditions
(c) Women deserted by 03 Marks husbands iv. For candidates whose families 08 Marks have donated land for school v. Candidates belonging to 03 Marks SC/ST/OBC/BPL vi. Candidates belonging to 03 Marks.
unemployed Families
Total 38 Marks.
The petitioner though on the basis of distribution of marks as per Notification dated 11.03.2022 secured first position, nonetheless he was found lacking in physical ability by the ( 2025:HHC:8738 ) 4 respondents for the task of Part Time Multi Task Worker. It is not in dispute that petitioner is suffering from Cerebral Palsy (abnormal development of the part of the brain that controls movement). The petitioner is also suffering from 60% disability in relation to his both legs. Thus he is also suffering from locomotor disability. The respondents were justified in not selecting the petitioner as Part Time Multi Task Worker considering that ailments suffered by him can hinder his ability to discharge duties as per the requirement of job profile of Part Time Multi Task Worker. Clause 10(a) of the Policy gives the job profile of Part Time Multi Task Worker as under:-
"10(a) The job profile of MTW will include:-
i) Opening and closing of school premises.
ii) Maintenance of cleanliness and hygienic conditions in the school premises, class room and associated buildings of the school.
iii) Distribution of dak, from school to various offices etc.
iv) Arrangement for drinking water to the school.
v) Any other school related miscellaneous job assigned by the Incharge of the school/SMC."
The respondents while justifying not selecting the petitioner as Part Time Multi Task Worker have also pleaded that in order to maintain transparency and impartiality in the selection process, counseling/interaction with the petitioner as to whether he was capable to perform the job profile of the post, was ( 2025:HHC:8738 ) 5 videographed by the Selection Committee. An envelope containing a DVD wherein the counseling of the petitioner has been statedly videographed has also been appended with the reply. Despite opportunity given to the petitioner, rejoinder has not been filed. Averments made in the reply have not been refuted on facts.
Since petitioner is suffering from disabilities which will certainly pose hindrance in his performing duties as required by the job profile of the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker which include opening & closing of school, maintenance of cleanliness in school premises/class rooms/associated buildings, distribution of dak etc., arrangement of drinking water in the school, the Selection Committee has justly not selected the petitioner for the post in question.
No other point was urged.
5. For the fore-going reasons the impugned orders call for no interference. Petition, devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge April 02 , 2025 (PK)