Himachal Pradesh High Court
Hem Lata vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 12 June, 2023
Bench: Mamidanna Satya Ratna Sri Ramachandra Rao, Ajay Mohan Goel
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.3462 of 2023
Decided on: 12.06.2023
Hem Lata .... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others .... Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioner : Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate.
For the respondents : M/s Rakesh Dhaulta, Pranay Pratap Singh,
Additional Advocate Generals and M/s Gautam
Sood, Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate Generals.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (Oral)
This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner, assailing order dated 11.04.2023 of the Director of Elementary Education-cum-2 nd Appellate Authority, Shimla, H.P. confirming order dated 02.03.2023, passed by the First Appellate Authority-cum- Additional District Magistrate, Solan, District Solan, H.P. on 31.01.2023.
2. The 8th respondent had initiated proceedings before the First 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 20:30:43 :::CIS 2.
Appellate Authority, challenging the appointment of the petitioner herein as Part Time Multi Task Worker.
3. The 8th respondent contended that she was a widow and she was entitled for 8 marks as per Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020;
that she was otherwise qualified to get appointed to the said post; but 8 marks due to her, on account of her being a widow, were denied and the petitioner was appointed to the said post. She also contended that she submitted the death certificate of her husband alongwith copy of the Parivar Register well in time before the Selection Committee, but on the ground that she did not produce the certificate issued by the Competent Authority that she is a widow, she was denied the said marks and the petitioner was appointed in her place.
4. The First Appellate Authority, after issuing notice to the petitioner, and after considering the contentions of both the parties and after perusing the entire record, held that though the policy in question mentioned that a valid certificate that the 8 th respondent is a widow would be the one issued by the Block Development Officer concerned, there is judgment of this Court rendered on 05.08.2022, in CWP No.3837 of 2022, titled as Shanti Devi Versus State and others; that the 8th respondent had produced a valid widow certificate issued by the Competent authority, though subsequently; the fact that the death certificate of her husband was ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 20:30:43 :::CIS 3 .
also enclosed and was before the Selection Committee was sufficient evidence to presume that she was a widow; she ought to have been given 8 marks more than the petitioner, and in this event she would have got 27 marks instead of the petitioner who had got 22 marks. He, therefore, set aside the appointment of the petitioner, directing the competent authority to redraw the result.
5. to Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd Appellate Authority, who confirmed the findings of the 1 st Appellate Authority.
6. He held that the 8th respondent had submitted the death certificate of her husband well in time before the Selection Committee, which was sufficient to indicate that she was a widow, that the Selection Committee should have accorded an opportunity to her to file a certificate duly issued by the competent authority at a later point of time, that such a certificate was in fact produced by her at a later point of time before the 1 st Appellate Authority, and therefore, she ought to have been appointed instead of the petitioner.
7. Assailing the same, this writ petition is filed.
8. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the 8th respondent should have produced a certificate to the Competent ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 20:30:43 :::CIS 4 .
Authority that she is a widow, and because she had failed to produce the same at the cut off date, she ought not have been granted any relief of the 1st Appellate Authority and the 2nd Appellate Authority, we are unable to accede to the said contention.
9. In Dolly Chhanda vs Chairman, Jee & Others, (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 779, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in regard to holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed, there cannot be any relaxation; but in regard to availing the benefit of reservation, weightage etc. where necessary certificates have to be produced, since these documents are in nature of proof of eligibility to get the said benefit of reservation, these documents can be produced at a later point of time and the rigid principle of production of all the certificates by the date fixed, cannot be applied. This view has been reiterated in other judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well including in Charles K. Skaria & Ors. Versus Dr. C. Mathew & Ors., 1980 (2) SCC 752.
10. Having regard to the above principles laid down in the judgments cited above, we find that the concurrent findings of the 1 st Appellate Authority as well as 2nd Appellate Authority, do not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 20:30:43 :::CIS 5.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
12. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
13. No order as to costs.
r to (M.S. Ramachandra Rao)
Chief Justice
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
June 12, 2023
(rishi/narender)
::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 20:30:43 :::CIS