Himachal Pradesh High Court
Karam Singh vs Director Of School Education And Others on 9 September, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14168 of 2025 Decided on: 9th September, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karam Singh .....Petitioner
.
Versus
Director of School Education and others .....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Umesh Kanwar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner's appointment as Part-Time Multi Task Worker at GPS Seri, Education Block Baijnath, District Kangra was set aside by the Appellate Authority-
cum-Additional District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala on 17.07.2025. Petitioner's appeal against the said order was dismissed by the 2nd Appellate Authority-cum-Director School Education, Himachal Pradesh on 25.08.2025.
Petitioner has, inter alia, laid challenge to these two concurrent orders in the instant writ petition with further 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 21:31:06 :::CIS 2prayer to direct the respondents to allow him to continue as Part-Time Multi Task Worker in the concerned school.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and .
considered the case file.
3. The case 3(i). Petitioner was appointed as Part-Time Multi Task Worker (PTMTW) on 03.08.2022 at GPS Seri, Education Block Baijnath, District Kangra. Respondent No.7 assailed petitioner's appointment by instituting CWP No.6416 of 2022. During hearing of the said writ petition on 10.10.2022, the Court was apprised that 2020 Policy framed for appointment of Part-Time Multi Task Workers had been amended by incorporating Rule 19 thereto vide addendum dated 25.08.2022. As per the said addendum and Rule 19 incorporated therein, right to file appeal in respect of complaints relating to selection/appointment etc. of PTMTWs was granted to the aggrieved persons to the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of the concerned District within 15 days from the selection/appointment.
The appeal was to be considered by the concerned ADM and disposed of within 30 days from its receipt. A provision for further appeal was also incorporated, which could be preferred within 15 days from the decision of the ADM to ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 21:31:06 :::CIS 3 the Director Higher Education/Elementary Education, as the case may be.
Taking note of the addendum dated 25.08.2022, .
CWP No.6416 of 2022 instituted by respondent No.7 was disposed of on 10.10.2022 by permitting the petitioner therein (present respondent No.7) to approach the Additional District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala by way of an appeal within 15 days from the date of judgment with further direction to the concerned authority to dispose of the appeal in terms of Rule 19 provided vide addendum dated 25.08.2022. The order further clarified that the appeal filed by the petitioner therein (present respondent No.7) would not be rejected on the ground of delay, but would be disposed of on merits. Relevant portion from the said decision is extracted hereinafter:-
"4. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to approach Additional District Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., by way of an appeal within 15 days from today and the said authority will dispose of the appeal in terms of Rule 19, provided vide Addendum dated 25th August, 2022.
5. It is clarified that the appeal filed by the petitioner would not be rejected on the ground of delay, but would be disposed of on merits."
3(ii). In view of liberty granted to respondent No.7 under the above decision, he preferred appeal before the ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 21:31:06 :::CIS 4 concerned ADM on 26.10.2022. The appeal was decided on 17.07.2025. Petitioner's appointment as PTMTW was quashed and set aside primarily on the grounds that he .
was not entitled to 08 marks awarded to him for land donation as petitioner's brother-Sh. Budhi Singh had already been awarded marks for land donation when he was selected as Part-Time Water Carrier in the same school in the year 2002. For the same land, marks could not be awarded again.
3(iii). Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the ADM on 17.07.2025, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director School Education-cum-2nd Appellate Authority on 29.07.2025. During pendency of the said appeal, the 1st Appellate Authority, i.e. ADM, Kangra at Dharamshala, passed another order on 12.08.2025. The said order was passed by the concerned authority in furtherance of the main order dated 17.07.2025. Under the fresh order, the Block Elementary Education Officer, Baijnath was directed to appoint the next eligible candidate in order of merit. The order was passed in a review application moved under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.
::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 21:31:06 :::CIS 53(iv). The second appeal preferred by the present petitioner was rejected by the Director School Education-
cum-2nd Appellate Authority on 25.08.2025 (Annexure P-7).
.
In the aforesaid background, petitioner has instituted this writ petition.
4. Consideration:-
To avoid repetition, the submissions urged for the petitioner & the respondent-State and discussion thereupon are being elaborated hereinafter.
4(i). The first point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal preferred by respondent No.7 before the 1st Appellate Authority-cum-ADM, Kangra at Dharamshala on 26.10.2022 was barred by a day's delay, therefore, it could not have been entertained. Learned counsel submitted that in CWP No.6416 of 2022, the petitioner therein (present respondent No.7) was permitted to file an appeal against present petitioner's selection within 15 days from the date of the decision. 15 days period elapsed on 25.10.2022. Petitioner's appeal preferred on 26.10.2022, therefore, was barred by one day, hence, could not have been entertained.
This contention of the petitioner has been raised only to be rejected. No doubt, CWP No.6416 of 2022 was ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 21:31:06 :::CIS 6 decided on 10.10.2022 with liberty reserved to the petitioner therein (present respondent No.7) to file appeal against present petitioner's selection within 15 days from .
the date of decision, nonetheless, the order also records that the appeal preferred by the petitioner (present respondent No.7) would not be rejected on ground of delay, but would be disposed of on merits. In view of specific directions issued in the judgment itself, both the authorities below did not err in entertaining the appeal preferred by respondent No.7 and deciding it on merits.
In the given facts and circumstances, Bindro Devi Versus State of H.P. and others2 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable. In the instant case, it was not the prescribed limitation period within which respondent No.7 was to prefer the appeal. 15 days' period was granted by the Court while deciding respondent No.7's writ petition to enable him to assail present petitioner's selection and appointment as PTMTW.
Point is held accordingly against the petitioner.
4(ii). The second point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner concerns the order passed by the 1st Appellate Authority-cum-ADM, Kangra at Dharamshala on 2 CWP No.3384 of 2023, decided on 03.10.2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 21:31:06 :::CIS 7 12.08.2025 in an application seeking review of the main order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the said authority. Under the main order dated 17.07.2025, the 1st Appellate .
Authority had set aside the selection and appointment of the present petitioner as PTMTW. The order dated 12.08.2025 is a consequential order directing the Block Elementary Education Officer, Baijnath to appoint next eligible candidate in order of merit fulfilling the prescribed eligibility criteria. The point urged for the petitioner that order dated r12.08.2025 was illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of the 1st Appellate Authority is an argument of desperation, more so, when this point was admittedly not raised by the petitioner before the 2nd Appellate Authority, where he had already instituted second appeal against the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the 1st Appellate Authority. Though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the 1st Appellate Authority-cum-ADM, Kangra at Dharamshala was not within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of hearing of the second appeal, nonetheless, the fact remains that order dated 12.08.2025 is only a procedural order passed in furtherance of the main order dated 17.07.2025.
Petitioner's appointment as PTMTW stood quashed under ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 21:31:06 :::CIS 8 order dated 17.07.2025. The order dated 12.08.2025 only directs to issue appointment order to next candidate in the merit list subject to eligibility. No prejudice has been .
caused to the petitioner under order dated 12.08.2025, which is a mere consequential order in furtherance of order dated 17.07.2025.
4(iii). Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that validity of the waiting list in terms of Clause 11 of the PTMTW Policy was one year, therefore, the 1st Appellate Authority r was not justified in ordering appointment of the candidate next in the merit list. That appropriate procedure would have been to initiate fresh selection process.
The above contention lacks substance. Clause 11 of the policy pertains to waiting list. The candidate from the waiting list is to be appointed in case the selected candidate does not join or leaves the job within one year of appointment. The present situation is not governed by Clause 11. Instant is a case where petitioner's selection and appointment had been challenged by an aggrieved person/ respondent No.7, who eventually emerged successful.
Therefore, the 1st Appellate Authority did not commit any illegality in directing the concerned Block Elementary ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 21:31:06 :::CIS 9 Education Officer on 12.08.2025 to fill up the post from the next eligible candidate in order of merit fulfilling the prescribed eligibility criteria as a consequence of setting .
aside of petitioner's appointment.
4(iv). Fourth and the main point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is on the merits of the claim of the petitioner. In terms of the concurrent orders passed by the 1st Appellate Authority as also by the 2nd Appellate Authority, 08 marks had wrongly been awarded to the petitioner on account of land donation; Petitioner was not entitled to any marks for land donation as his brother-
Sh. Budhi Singh had been previously awarded marks for land donation at the time of his selection as Part-Time Water Carrier in the same school in the year 2002.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that petitioner's brother had been awarded marks for land donation at the time of his selection as Part-
Time Water Carrier in the same school in the year 2002.
The contention, however, urged is that it was on 30.04.2013 that petitioner's father had executed a gift deed in favour of the respondent-Education Department, donating part of the land comprised in Khata No.39 Min, Khatauni No.220 Min, Khasra No.398, measuring 0-03-76 ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 21:31:06 :::CIS 10 hectares. On the basis of said gift deed, mutation No.277 was entered and attested in favour of the State Education Department on 01.05.2013.
.
Both the authorities below, however, have concurrently returned factual findings that though the gift deed had been formally executed by petitioner's father in favour of the respondent-Education Department on 30.04.2013, but the land in question had been coming in possession of the Education Department ever since the year 1997 and the school had also been running since then on the same land. These factual aspects have not been countered in this writ petition. The undisputed fact that petitioner's brother had been awarded 05 marks for land donation in the year 2002 at the time of his selection as Part-Time Water Carrier in the same school and that there is no other land donated by petitioner's father to the respondent-Education Department in itself confirms the fact that the school had been running over the land in question much prior to the formal execution of gift deed by petitioner's father. On this aspect, on the first date of hearing of this writ petition (02.09.2025), at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, time was granted to place on record documents in support of his assertion that school ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 21:31:06 :::CIS 11 had not been established prior to 2013 in terms of following order:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner to placed on record the pleadings, more particularly the reply filed by .
the petitioner to the complaint lodged against him by respondent No.7 before the First Authority, as well as the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, to support the contention now being urged for him to the effect that the petitioner's brother was not awarded any marks for land donation and that the school had not been established on the land donated by the petitioner's family prior to the year 2013, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed two days' time.
List on 08.09.2025."
No further document has been placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has not been able to establish that school was not running on the land in question since 1997 or that his brother had not been awarded marks in lieu of donation of same very land at the time of his (petitioner's brother) appointment as Part-
Time Water Carrier in the same school in the year 2002.
The concurrent orders passed by two authorities below, holding that petitioner was not entitled to marks given to him in lieu of land donation and consequently setting aside his selection & appointment as PTMTW, do not warrant any interference.
5. For all the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition. The same is accordingly ::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 21:31:06 :::CIS 12 dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
September 09, 2025 Judge
Mukesh
r to
::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 21:31:06 :::CIS