Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ms. Sumna Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 8 August, 2023
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CWP No.1302 of 2023
Date of Decision: 8.8.2023
_____________________________________________________________________
Ms. Sumna Devi
.........Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
of
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
rt
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General
with Mr. Rahul Thakur and Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocates General, for the
State.
Mr. Pawan K. Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No.7.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 18.3.2023, passed by the Director, Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, whereby an appeal under Rule 19 of the Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy, 2020, having been filed by the petitioner herein came to be dismissed, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set-aside the aforesaid order.
::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2023 20:32:36 :::CIS -2-2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that .
petitioner and respondent No.7 applied for post of Part Time Multi Task Workers at Government Primary School, Mahmla, Centre Chhiachhi, Tehsil Ramshehar, District Solan, H.P., alongwith other candidates. Though petitioner and respondent No.7 secured equal marks i.e. 30/38, but petitioner Sumna Devi was offered appointment of against the post in question. Respondent No.7 on account of his non-
selection and against the selection of the petitioner filed an appeal rt before ADM Solan-cum-Appellate Authority on the ground that Selection Committee failed to consider the income certificate re-issued to him on 16.7.2022, whereby his income was shown to be less than Rs. 27,000/-. Respondent No.7 claimed before the Appellate Authority that his income is less than the petitioner, who had produced the income certificate with income less than Rs. 27000/- issued on 22.7.2022 and as such, in terms of instructions dated 24.5.2022, preference was required to be given to him on account of his having produced income certificate with low income i.e. less than Rs.
27,000/-.
3. Record reveals that at the time of making application against the post in question, respondent No.7 had produced income certificate with income less than Rs. 25,000/- issued on 1.10.2021, but since same was cancelled by the Tehsildar Ramshehar, Tehsil Solan on 14.3.2022, the same was not taken into consideration by the ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2023 20:32:36 :::CIS -3- Selection Committee, as a result of which, petitioner herein was .
offered appointment. However, during pendency of the appeal before the ADM Solan-cum-Appellate Authority, respondent No.7 made available certificate dated 16.7.2022 issued by the Tehsildar, thereby showing his income to be less than Rs. 27,000/- i.e. Rs.26,075/-.
Learned ADM Solan-cum-Appellate Authority having taken note of the of fact that fresh income certificate dated 16.7.2022 stands issued in favour of respondent No.7, whereby he has been shown to be having rt income less than Rs. 27,000/-, cancelled the appointment of the petitioner. Besides above, ADM Solan-cum-Appellate Authority also observed in the order that since respondent No.7 had donated the land for construction of the school, he was required to be given additional marks, which were not given by the Selection Committee. Though pursuant to order dated 5.1.2023, passed by the ADM Solan-cum-
Appellate Authority, petitioner was required to be removed from the post in question, but before action, if any, could be initiated against the petitioner, she filed an appeal before the Director, Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, under Rule 19 of the Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy, but same was also dismissed vide order dated 18.3.2023. It has been stated at the Bar that as of today, petitioner is still continuing against the post in question.
4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2023 20:32:36 :::CIS -4- for the petitioner, is that since certificate dated 1.10.2021, thereby .
showing income of respondent No.7 to be less than Rs. 27,000/-, made available by respondent No.7 at the time of making application was cancelled and as such, there was no occasion, if any, for the Selection Committee to consider fresh certificate, if any, issued on 16.7.2022. Above named counsel further submitted that otherwise of also, respondent No.7 cannot be offered appointment against the post in question on account of the fact that certificate dated 16.7.2022, rt thereby showing income of respondent No.7 to be less than Rs.
27,000/- i.e. Rs. 26,075/- stands cancelled vide order dated 6.1.2022 (Annexure P-11).
5. Mr. Aditya Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the gift deed, whereby petitioner had donated the land for construction of the school itself suggests that land was donated on 18.5.2022, i.e. after issuance of advertisement, thereby inviting applications for the post in question and as such, Selection Committee rightly not granted marks against the aforesaid category.
6. Mr. Pawan Kumar Thakur, learned counsel representing respondent No.7 supported the impugned order. He submitted that since Selection Committee, while rejecting the case of the respondent, failed to take note of the certificate dated 16.7.2022, issued in his favour by the competent authority thereby showing his income to be less than Rs. 27,000/-, no illegality and infirmity can be said to have ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2023 20:32:36 :::CIS -5- been committed by the Director, Elementary Education, while rejecting .
the appeal having been preferred by the petitioner. He further submitted that gift deed placed on record clearly establishes factum with regard to donation of the land made by the petitioner for construction of the school and as such, respondents otherwise ought to have awarded marks against that category. He submitted that if of marks against the aforesaid category are awarded to the petitioner, he being higher in merit otherwise would be entitled to be given rt appointment against the post in question.
7. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General representing respondents No. 1, 2 and 6/State also supported the impugned order on the grounds as have been raised by respondent No.7.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner and respondent No.7 had secured equal marks i.e. 30/38 and as such, in terms of instructions dated 24.5.2022, preference was required to be given to the candidate coming from family of lower income. In the case at hand, petitioner produced income certificate dated 22.11.2021, thereby showing her income to be less than Rs.27,000/-, whereas respondent No.7 produced income certificate of Rs. 22,000/- issued on 1.10.2021, and as such, respondent No.7 was required to be offered the appointment, however, as has been taken note herein above, ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2023 20:32:36 :::CIS -6- certificate dated 1.10.2021, issued in favour of respondent No.7, .
thereby showing his income to be less than 22,000/- was canceled by Tehsildar, Ramshahar District Solan, on 14.7.2022 and as such, Selection Committee, rightly denied the appointment to respondent No.7. Interestingly, in the case at hand, ADM Solan-cum-Appellate Authority took cognizance of the certificate allegedly issued in favour of of respondent No.7 by the Tehsildar on 16.7.2022, thereby showing his income to be less than Rs. 27,000/-, which otherwise now stands rt cancelled in terms of order dated 6.1.2023 (Annexure P-11). Since income of the candidate participating for selection to the post of Multi Task Worker was to be seen by the Selection Committee at the time of the date of interview, issuance of certificate thereafter, if any, thereby showing less income than the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.7, is/was of no consequence and as such, ADM Solan-cum-
Appellate Authority, fell in grave error while ordering appointment of respondent No.7 against the post in question after removal of the petitioner. Director, Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, in an appeal filed by the petitioner completely ignored the aforesaid aspects of the matter and returned very interesting finding i.e. respondent No.5 i.e. "I see no urgency in revision of the income certificate before its validity once the same has been issued after proper inquiry & reports obtained from concerned revenue officers."
::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2023 20:32:36 :::CIS -7-9. Aforesaid Authority conveniently ignored the factum with .
regard to cancellation of the aforesaid certificate dated 16.7.2022 by the competent authority i.e. Tehsildar. Though aforesaid factum was brought to the knowledge of the Director by the petitioner, as is evident from the impugned order, but appellate authority completely ignored the aforesaid cruicial aspect of the matter and proceeded to of uphold the order of ADM Solan-cum-Appellate Authority, which is otherwise not based on proper appreciation of facts as well as law.
10. rt Leaving everything aside, once it is not in dispute that subsequent certificate dated 16.7.2022 issued in favour of respondent No.7 thereby showing his income to be less than the petitioner stands cancelled, respondent No.7 otherwise cannot be appointed against the post in question. Similarly, this court finds that no marks for donation of land were required to be granted to respondent No.7 for the fact that gift deed of the land, if any, for construction of the school came to be made after issuance of the advertisement. Even if marks for donating land to respondent No.7 are given, he cannot be selected against the post in question in view of the fact that his income certificate stands cancelled.
11. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 18.3.2023, passed by the Director, Elementary Education, thereby rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner is quashed and set-aside ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2023 20:32:36 :::CIS -8- and respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner .
against the post in question forthwith. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.
August 8, 2023 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2023 20:32:36 :::CIS