Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 2Nd September vs State Of H.P. And Others on 2 September, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
2025:HHC:29678 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14186 of 2025 Decided on: 2nd September, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rakesh .....Petitioner
.
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Respondent No.4 was appointed as Part-Time Multi Task Worker in Government Primary School Panjor under Elementary Education Block Bakras, District Sirmour. Petitioner assailed the appointment of respondent No.4. His appeal preferred under Clause 19 of the Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020 (in short 'PTMTW Policy') was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate, District Sirmour at Nahan on 25.02.2025 (Annexure P-2).
1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:24:22 :::CIS 22025:HHC:29678 Second appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Director School Education, Himachal Pradesh on 26.04.2025 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner has .
assailed the aforesaid orders in the instant writ petition with a prayer for directing respondents No.1 to 3 to appoint him as Part-Time Multi Task Worker at the concerned school.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the case file.
3. The case 3(i).
Before the two authorities below, the main contention raised for the petitioner was that respondent No.4 had been appointed without following the selection process and without inviting applications from the eligible candidates. That respondent No.4 had been appointed as Part-Time Multi Task Worker under Clause 18 of the PTMTW Policy; This clause stands deleted from the policy, therefore, respondent No.4 could not have been appointed invoking this clause. The petitioner also impressed before the authorities below that he was eligible for appointment to the post in question as his family had donated land to the Education Department.
::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:24:22 :::CIS 32025:HHC:29678 Both the authorities below concurrently held on facts that respondent No.4 was appointed as Part-Time Multi Task Worker on 22.12.2021 in terms of Clause 18 of .
the PTMTW Policy. This fact has also been acknowledged by learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant writ petition. Clause 18 of the PTMTW Policy reads as under:-
"18. Appointments on extreme compassionate ground The Government will have the power to appoint any candidate as Part Time-Multi Task Worker on compassionate ground without following the selection process if the candidate is below the Poverty Line or has a Low Income Certificate issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar, SDO(C) or Executive Magistrate of the concerned area and if the candidate is a:-
i) Widow, or
ii) Women deserted by the husband or otherwise destitute, or
iii) Persons with special needs; or
iv) An orphan; or
v) Member of family living in extreme indigent conditions.
Family includes father, mother and their children. This certificate will be issued by an officer not below the rank of SDO(C) of the area."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also conceded that afore-extracted Clause 18 of the PTMTW Policy was in existence at the time of appointment of respondent No.4 on 22.12.2021 and the said clause was deleted from the policy vide government notification dated 11.03.2022. This being the admitted factual position, the concurrent orders passed by the two authorities below, ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:24:22 :::CIS 4 2025:HHC:29678 rejecting the contention of the petitioner about appointment of respondent No.4 without following the selection process, do not call for any interference.
.
3(ii). Another argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that even in terms of Clause 18 of PTMTW Policy, respondent No.4 was not eligible to be appointed, as according to Clause 18(iv), 'an orphan' could have been appointed as Part-Time Multi Task Worker and in terms of clarification issued by the respondents on 24.05.2022, orphan was defined as "a person whose Biological/Adopted Parents had died before his/her attaining 18 years of age.
There is no upper age limit for such consideration but he/she has to be an orphan as per this definition. The certificate in this regard will be issued by the concerned Block Development Officer".
The above clarification admittedly was issued on 24.05.2022 (pages 36 to 41 of the paper book), whereas, respondent No.4 was appointed as Part-Time Multi Task Worker on 22.12.2021 in terms of PTMTW Policy, 2020 as was in force at the relevant time. As per Clause 18 thereof, 'an orphan' was eligible to be appointed as Part-Time Multi Task Worker on compassionate ground without following ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:24:22 :::CIS 5 2025:HHC:29678 the selection process, if he was below the poverty line or he had a Low Income Certificate issued by the competent authority'. As per pleaded case of the petitioner, respondent .
No.4 was an orphan at the time of his appointment as Part-
Time Multi Task Worker, though he was above the age of 18 years. Clause 18 of the PTMTW Policy, 2020, as it existed at the time of appointment of respondent No.4, did not restrict the definition of 'orphan' to a person below the age of 18 years.
4. No other ground was urged.
5. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
September 02, 2025 Judge
Mukesh
::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2025 21:24:22 :::CIS