Himachal Pradesh High Court
Samriti Thakur vs State Of Hp & Ors on 30 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 174 of 2024
Date of Decision: 30.04.2024
_____________________________________________________________________
.
Samriti Thakur .........Petitioner
Versus
State of HP & Ors. .......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Ms. Aruna Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.
Vishal Panwar, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C
Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr.
Ravi Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents
r State.
Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.
5.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 22.08.2023 passed by Director of Elementary Educationcum2nd Appellate Authority, Shimla, whereby an appeal having been filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Parttime Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020, came to be dismissed, petitioner herein approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order.
2. Precisely, facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that on 10.06.2022 petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2024 20:32:56 :::CIS 2 appeared for counselling for the post of Multi Task Worker, but unfortunately she was unable to make place in the select list, rather, respondent No. 5 being more meritorious came to be appointed as .
Multi Task Worker. Since, subsequently petitioner came to know that she was not awarded eight marks as contemplated under Clause 4 of the Multi Task Worker Policy, which provides for grant of eight marks to such a candidate, whose family has donated land for the construction of the school.
3. Since, Government Primary School Charimu, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, HP, is situated on the land of father of the petitioner, but yet she was not awarded marks at the time of consideration of her candidature for the post of Multi Task Worker, she approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition, but Civil Writ Petition No. 3775 of 2022, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 23.11.2022 with a liberty to the petitioner to approach Additional District Magistrate, Shimla by way of filing an appeal within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of order. Though, petitioner herein filed an appeal under Rule 19 of the Parttime Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020 before aforesaid authority, but same came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.07.2023.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Shimla, petitioner filed an appeal to Director Elementary Educationcum2 nd Appellate ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2024 20:32:56 :::CIS 3 Authority, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.08.2023 (Annexure P2). In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record visavis reasoning assigned in the impugned order in the instant proceedings, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for. No doubt, careful perusal of Policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for appointment of Multi Task Worker reveals that candidate appearing in the interview is entitled to eight marks on account of his/ her having donated land to the Education Department for construction of school. In the instant case, petitioner though repeatedly claimed that school in question situate on the land donated by her father, but admittedly no documents suggestive of donation of land in question in favour of the petitioner ever came to be adduced on record and as such, both the authorities rightly upheld the decision of Selection Committee in not awarding eight marks to the petitioner, while considering her candidature for the post in question.
6. Ms. Arun Chauhan, learned counsel representing petitioner, while making this Court peruse Certificate issued by Tehsildar (Anneuxre P3) vehemently argued that since it was specifically certified vide aforesaid Certificate that school is situated on the land of the father of the petitioner, petitioner ought to have been ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2024 20:32:56 :::CIS 4 awarded eight marks, however, this Court finds no merit in the aforesaid claim of the learned counsel representing petitioner for the reason that bare perusal of aforesaid certificate nowhere suggests that .
land, on which school in question exists was ever donated, rather certificate as taken note herein above only suggests that land though is in the possession of school in question, but ownership is of father of the petitioner. Such fact, if any, may not be sufficient to claim eight marks in terms of Clause 4 of the Policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for appointment of Parttime Multi Task Worker, which provides as under:
4. (i) Under Clause 7, candidates whose i. Term of family will be As per criteria families have donated land for schools "Land Donor or His/Her mentioned in Principal are to be given 08 Marks. However the Spouse and their children". Secretary (Education) to term families has not been defined and the GoHP Letter No. needs to be defined. ii. The Certificate will be EDN-C-B (2) 35/2006-L issued by the concerned Dated 08.12.2016.
(ii) Who will be the issuing authority Tehsildar. He will do so on the for land donation certificate? Whether basis of report of Patwari or the marks will be awarded to only such registered Gift Deed. Copy of candidates whose families have registered Gift Deed will also donated land for the same school in be acceptable for issue of land which He/She has applied. donation certificate. Even if Intkaal has not been done for
(iii) Should anybody who has donated some reason and the land is in land after the issue of advertisement be possession of the school. The awarded marks for land donation? marks will be awarded only to those candidates whose families have donated land for the same school for which the PTMTW is being engaged.
(iii) No candidate whose family has donated land after the issue of advertisement for the post of PTMTW will be awarded any marks.
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2024 20:32:56 :::CIS 57. While referring to aforesaid provision though Ms. Aruna Kumari, learned counsel representing petitioner attempted to argue that certificate issued by Tehsildar on the basis of report of Patwari is .
sufficient for awarding marks, but having perused aforesaid provision in its entirety, this Court finds no reason to agree with Ms.Aruna Chauhan, learned counsel representing petitioner, because while issuing Certificate, if any, by the Tehsildar he or she is to specifically certify that land, on which, school is situated was donated or gifted by the father of the petitioner. However, in the instant case, certificate pressed into service simply suggests that school in question exists upon the land of the father of the petitioner and there is no definite certification that land in question, upon which school exists was donated in favour of the school in question by father of the petitioner.
8. Consequently, in view of above, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and as such, same is upheld. Present petition fails and dismissed accordingly.
April 30, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma),
Sunil Judge
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2024 20:32:56 :::CIS