Himachal Pradesh High Court
Amra Devi vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 28 April, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
( 2025:HHC:11344 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7750/2023 Decided on: 28.04.2025 Amra Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.
........................................................................................... Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners Mr. Hirdaya Ram and Mr. Suresh Saini, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 6 & 8.
Mr. Mohan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.9.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Petitioner was appointed as Part Time Multi Task Worker (PTMTW) in a Government Primary School. Respondent No.9 assailed petitioner's appointment before the competent authority. The Competent Authority delegated his authority to other authorities. These authorities passed orders against the petitioner but without hearing her. On the basis of the orders passed by these authorities respondent No.3 appointed respondent No.9 as PTMTW though petitioner's appointment as PTMTW was not set aside. Petitioner 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:11344 ) preferred appeal against the above orders to the second Appellate Authority. This authority dismissed her appeal ex-parte. Petitioner contends that even this authority did not give her due opportunity of hearing & condemned her unheard, hence the petition.
2. The case 2(i) Petitioner and respondent No.9 participated in the selection process undertaken by the official respondents for the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker (PTMTW) in Government Primary School, Education Block Banjar, District Kullu. Counselling/interview for the post was conducted on 13.06.2022. Petitioner emerged successful and was accordingly appointed as PTMTW on 24.06.2022. Respondent No.9 challenged the selection and appointment of the petitioner by instituting Punu Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 Taking note of alternate remedy provided against the selection of the PTMTW under Addendum dated 25.08.2022 to the Policy for appointment of PTMTW, the writ petition was disposed of on 13.10.2022 by permitting respondent No.9 (petitioner therein) to approach the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. by way of an appeal, within 15 days. The said authority was directed to dispose of the appeal in terms of Rule-19 incorporated in the Policy under Addendum dated 25th August 2022. Rule 19 provided under Addendum dated 25.08.2022 reads as under:- 2
CWP No. 7143/2022 decided on 13.10.2022 3 ( 2025:HHC:11344 ) "In partial modification of this Department's Notification No.EDN-C- B(1)2/2019 dated 16th July, 2020 (as updated upto 11th March, 2022), the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to add "Rule-
19. Appellate Authority" in the Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy, 2020 as under:
19.Appellate Authority:
The appeal in respect of complaints relating to PTMTW selection/appointment etc. should be made to the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of the district within 15 days of the selection/appointment. The appeal will be considered by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of the district and disposed off within 30 days from its receipt with suitable directions. If the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome, then he/she may file an appeal with the Director of Higher/Elementary Education, as the case may be, within 15 days from the decision of the Additional District Magistrate (ADM). The appellate authority may dispose off the appeal within 60 days after hearing the appellant." As per Clause 19 incorporated in the Policy for appointment of Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy-2020, the appeal in respect of complaint relating to selection and appointment of PTMTW is to be made to the ADM of the concerned District within 15 days of the selection/appointment. The appeal is to be decided by the ADM within 30 days from its receipt. Rule 19 provides for further remedy of second appeal to the Director of Higher/Elementary Education as the case may be within 15 days from the date of decision of ADM. The Second Appellate Authority is to dispose of the appeal within 60 days after hearing the parties. 4
( 2025:HHC:11344 ) 2(ii) Pursuant to the decision in Punu Devi's case2, respondent No.9 preferred an appeal under Rule 19 of Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy-2020 before the ADM, Kullu on 31.10.2022. The appeal was disposed of on 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-9). The ADM, Kullu instead of himself deciding the appeal on merits, in a strange manner directed:-
the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Banjar, to pass reasoned order on the issue of legitimacy of petitioner's selection in the Below Poverty Line (BPL) list within 15 days; SDM Banjar was further directed to supply copy of his reasoned order to be so passed by him to the Member Secretary Block Elementary Education Officer (BEEO) Banjar;
the Block Development Officer Bhunter to also pass a reasoned order concerning the issue of change of ward by the present petitioner within 15 days and to supply the same to the BEEO Banjar.
the Member Secretary of the Selection Committee i.e. BEEO Banjar was directed to place both the orders i.e. passed by SDM Banjar and BDO Bhunter before the Selection Committee within 15 days from their receipt. A fresh result sheet was directed to be re- drawn as per the findings received from the SDM Banjar and BDO Bhunter.
5
( 2025:HHC:11344 ) The appeal was disposed of in above terms & file was consigned to record room.
2(ii)(a) Pursuant to the disposal of respondent No.9's appeal on 22.12.2022 by the ADM Kullu in the manner referred to above, the SDM Banjar passed an order on 10.2.2023 (Annexure P-10) holding petitioner's inclusion in BPL list by the concerned Gram Sabha to be in violation of State Rural Development Department's notification dated July 2018.
2(ii)(b) Pursuant to the direction of ADM Kullu, the BDO Bhunter vide his order dated 03.02.2023 (Annexure-11) held that the procedure adopted for change of petitioner's Ward from Ward No.2 to Ward No.5 was in violation of the H.P. Panchayati Raj General Rules 1997.
2(ii)(c) Based upon orders passed by the ADM Kullu on 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-9), SDM Banjar on 10.02.2023 (Annexure P-10) and BDO Bhunter on 03.02.2023 (Annexure P-11), the BEEO Banjar District Kullu appointed respondent No.9 as Part Time Multi Task Worker on 28.02.2023 (Annexure P-13). 2(iii) Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid orders passed by the ADM Kullu on 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-9), SDM Banjar, dated 10.02.2023 (Annexure P-10), BDO Bhunter dated 03.02.2023 (Annexure P-11) and the appointment order issued to respondent No. 9 on 28.02.2023 (Annexure P-13), the petitioner instituted second 6 ( 2025:HHC:11344 ) appeal in terms of Rule 19 of the Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy- 2020 before the Director of Elementary Education-cum- Second Appellate Authority on 03.03.2023. This appeal was dismissed on 31.03.2023 (Annexure P-16).
2(iv) Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has instituted this writ petition seeking following substantive reliefs:-
"(i) To issue writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-9 i.e. impugned order dated 22-12-2022 passed without application of mind by the respondent No. 4, Annexure P-10 i.e. impugned order dated 10-02-2023 passed by the respondent No. 5, Annexure P-11 i.e. impugned letter dated 03-02-2023 issued by the respondent No. 6, Annexure P-12 i.e. impugned preliminary inquiry report conducted by the Panchayat Inspector and SEBPO posted in the office of the respondent No. 6 because Annexure P-10 to 12 have been passed behind the back of the petitioner and to quash Annexure P-16 i.e. impugned order dated 31-03-2023 passed by the respondent No. 2 as the same has been passed ex-parte and that to quash Annexure P-13 i.e. impugned appointment order dated 28-02-2023 together with Annexure P-17(Colly) i.e. office order dated 03-03-2023 and joining report dated 03-02-2023 passed against the settled law and the facts and circumstances of the case.
ii) To issue writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-26 i.e. income certificate dated 09-11-2021 of the respondent No. 9 in view of RC details (Annexure P-25 colly) as the respondent No. 9 has two four wheelers vehicles in her name.
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to continue as Part Time Multi Task Worker in GCPS Sainj, Education Block Sainj (earlier Education Block Banjar), District Kullu in compliance to appointment letter dated 24-06-2022 issued by Block Elementary Education Officer Banjar, office order dated 25-06-2022 passed by respondent No. 7 and 7 ( 2025:HHC:11344 ) joining report of the petitioner dated 25-06-2022 (Annexure P-7 Colly).
iv) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to regularize the period from 04-03-2023 to 16-03-2023 (Annexure P-20) of the petitioner as the period spent on duty as the petitioner has remained present in the GPS Sainj but the Member Secretary of the respondent No. 7 did not allow marking of attendance by the petitioner.
v) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to wages/honorarium to pay the the petitioner including for the period 04-03-2023 to 16-03-2023(Annexure P-20) as per Clause 12 of the notification dated 16-07-2022 (Annexure P-1) with all consequential benefits."
Following interim order passed in this matter on 13.10.2023:-
"................Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that in pursuance to the impugned order, private respondent No. 9 has joined on 3rd March, 2023 and is working since then. He simultaneously maintains that even the petitioner has been allowed to work since then and she is continuing to work. That being so, status quo will be maintained till next date. It is clarified that private respondent, who has already joined, will not be disturbed under the garb of this order."
It has been stated by learned counsel for the parties that the petitioner as well as respondent No.9 , both are working as PTMTW in the concerned school as on date, but without payment of salary.
8
( 2025:HHC:11344 )
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.
4(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly urged that the appeal filed by respondent No.9 was not decided on merits by the ADM Kullu-competent authority. The officers who were not competent to decide the same actually disposed of the appeal. The petitioner was not even heard by the SDM Banjar and the BDO Bhunter before passing orders pursuant to the directions of the ADM, Kullu dated 22.12.2022. Copy of orders passed by SDM Banjar & BDO Bhunter were not supplied to the petitioner. 4(i)(a) It is writ large from the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the ADM District Kullu that he had not discharged his obligation/duty as an appellate authority in terms of Rule 19 of the Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy-2020. As first appellate authority, ADM though could have asked for report/order on some specific issues from the concerned authorities, but it was for the ADM concerned, to have passed the final order on the appeal preferred by respondent No.9. Instead of deciding the appeal himself, the ADM Kullu, delegated his authority to the SDM Banjar, BDO Bhunter, BEEO Banjar and also to the Selection Committee. The appeal preferred by respondent No.9 was not decided on merits by the ADM Kullu. It was for the appellate authority to decide the appeal on its merits. It is this authority, which had been conferred power under 9 ( 2025:HHC:11344 ) Rule 19 to decide the first appeal. Piece meal decisions of the SDM Banjar and BDO Bhunter on two separate issues neither constitute decision on appeal preferred by respondent No.9 nor these offices had been empowered under the Policy to decide the appeal. The delegation of power by the ADM to the aforesaid authorities under order passed by him on 22.12.2022 was not in consonance with the provisions of Rule 19 of the Policy. There is no decision on the appeal filed by respondent No.9 against petitioner's selection. 4(i)(b) There are specific pleadings in the writ petition that the petitioner had not been heard by these authorities viz. SDM Banjar & BDO Bhunter before passing the orders on 10.02.2023 & 03.02.2023; There is infraction of principles of natural justice. It is further case of the petitioner that though her appointment as Part Time Multi Task Worker has not been withdrawn or cancelled, yet the respondents vide order dated 28.02.2023 appointed respondent No.9 as Part Time Multi Task Worker.
The above facts, assertions & allegations have not been refuted by the respondents in their respective replies to the writ petition.
4(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not been heard by the Second Appellate Authority in the appeal preferred by her.
10
( 2025:HHC:11344 ) 4(ii)(a) A perusal of the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Second Appellate Authority more particularly para-2 thereof, records the fact that the petitioner had been afforded opportunities of hearing on 04.03.2023 and 13.03.2023, but neither the petitioner nor her counsel appeared on the said dates. That the petitioner thereafter was offered one last chance to appear for personal hearing on 21.03.2023. The petitioner, however, again remained absent on 21.03.2023, when the record produced by the State was examined and ex-parte decision was taken vide Annexure P-16.
4(ii)(b) Notices issued to the petitioner for personal hearing in the second appeal have been placed on record as Annexure P-15 (colly). At page-95 of the paper book is a notice issued to the petitioner on 03.03.2023 directing her to appear before the Second Appellate Authority on 04.03.2023. At page-96 of the paper book, is a notice issued to the petitioner on 10.03.2023 for appearance before the Second Appellate Authority on 13.03.2023. Learned counsel submitted that both these notices were not received by the petitioner in time. That these were received by her through post much after the date on which the petitioner was directed to remain present before the Authority.
Petitioner is resident of VPO Sainj, Tehsil Sainj, District Kullu, H.P. She was directed under the above notices to appear 11 ( 2025:HHC:11344 ) before the Second Appellate Authority at Shimla. The notices were statedly sent to the petitioner by post. There is force in factual assertion of the petitioner that she could not have received these notices in time as time window given to her under these notices was very short.
Considering the proximity of time, in which the petitioner was directed to remain present under different notices, the petitioner's factual assertion is believable that she was not given the notice for appearance before the Second Appellate Authority in time. That she did not receive notices in time. At Page-97 of the paper book is another notice issued to the petitioner on 14.03.2023 directing her to appear before the Second Appellate Authority at Shimla on 21.03.2023. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner did receive this notice but in the afternoon on 21.03.2023. Thereafter, she preferred a representation to the Second Appellate Authority on 24.03.2023 (page 98 of the paper book) seeking adjournment in the matter on the ground of having received notice belatedly, however, her request was not acceded to. The ex-parte proceedings had been conducted on 21.03.2023 itself. There is force in the factual assertion made by the petitioner that notices given with short time intervals for appearance issued by the Second Appellate Authority, could not have been received by her through post in time. Keeping in view the close proximity of the next date of hearing given under the aforesaid 12 ( 2025:HHC:11344 ) notices, ex-parte proceedings conducted against her by the Second Appellate Authority, therefore, are not justiciable being not in consonance with established principles of natural justice.
5. In light of facts as have come on record, the inescapable conclusions are that:-
5(i) The order passed by the ADM, District Kullu on 22.12.2022, delegating his power to decide the appeal on merits to other authorities, is not in consonance with Rule 19 of the Addendum dated 25.08.2022 to the Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy-2020.
The order dated 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-9) is quashed and set aside.
5(ii) Consequent orders passed by: the Sub Divisional Magistrate Banjar, District Kullu on 10.02.2023 (Annexure P-10), by the Block Development Officer Bhunter on 03.02.2023 (Annexure P-
11) having been passed without any authority under the Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy-2020 & also being in violation of principles of natural justice are also quashed and set aside. 5(iii) Based upon the aforesaid orders, appointment of respondent No.9 dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure P-13) as Part Time Multi Task Worker at Government Primary School Sainj, District Kullu, by respondent No.3 is also set aside as having been ordered without there being any authority, in violation of principles of natural justice and without setting aside petitioner's appointment as PTMTW. 13
( 2025:HHC:11344 ) 5(iv) The order passed by the Second Appellate Authority dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure P-16) is also set aside being in violation of principles of natural justice.
This writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The Appeal instituted by respondent No.9 before the ADM Kullu, is ordered to be restored to its original number. The competent authority is directed to consider and decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of appearance of the parties before it. The competent authority shall be at liberty to call for reports of concerned officials, if considered necessary, to facilitate its decision on merits of the above. Parties through learned counsel are directed to appear before the competent authority on 08th May, 2025.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 28th April, 2025(rohit)