Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ravi Raj vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 4 December, 2023
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.9724 of 2023
Decided on: 04.12.2023
Ravi Raj ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents.
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
_____________________________________________________
rt
For the petitioner: Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General,
Mr.Rupinder Singh Thakur,
Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate
Generals, Mr. Rohit Sharma, Mr. Sumit
Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals, with
Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for
respondentsState.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Law Officer, accepts notice on behalf of the respondentsState.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:
i) That, a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing and setting aside Annexure P3 dated 26.7.2023 and Annexure P4 dated 18.9.2023.
ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue working as Part Time Multi Task Worker at Government Primary School, Silpadi, Education Block Bharmour, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh."
3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2023 20:31:47 :::CIS 2.
are that in the month of April, 2022, Deputy Director (Education), District Chamba, H.P. advertised certain posts of Part Time Multi Task Worker for district Chamba. The petitioner and the private respondent participated in the process for appointment as such. The Selection Committee constituted under the chairmanship of S.D.O. of (Civil), Bharmour, recommended the petitioner for appointment vide Annexure P1, dated 11.07.2022, in Government Primary School rt Silpadi. This recommendation was assailed by the private respondent before this Court by way of CWP No.4856 of 2022 primarily on the ground that the said respondent was denied eight marks by the Selection Committee to which he was entitled to in view of the fact that his father had donated the land for the purpose of construction of the school. The Writ Petition of the private respondent was disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 27.09.2022, by permitting the private respondent to approach Additional District Magistrate, Bharmour by way of appeal. Pursuant thereto the respondent filed an appeal which was allowed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Bharmour in terms of order dated 27.06.2023 (Annexure P3). The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority by assigning the following reasons: "9. On perusal of all the record placed in the case file and after hearing the arguments of both the parties I found that in the instant case gift deed of the land has done on 21.04.2023 i.e. the date after issuance of notification of recruitment. The spirit of the policy is seems to ensure ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2023 20:31:47 :::CIS 3 .
that at the date of issuance of advertisement, land should be under the possession of education department and it must be gifted to the department before the date of issuance of advertisement of recruitment. First intention of the legislature seems to give benefit to those families who has gifted their land to noble cause i.e. construction of of school building. Second intention of the legislature seems that it want to stop such person from taking benefit of marks of land donation, who has got ready to rt donate land after knowing the fact that they will get 8 marks in selection process. Thus this is crystal clear that a provision of marks for land donation has been made in the policy just to give benefit to those Families who has donated their land for noble cause selflessly with bonafied intention. The act of donation of land must be selfless and concrete..
10. The instant case fulfills both criteria's of policy. Firstly land is in possession of education department and it has been gifted before the issuance of notification of recruitment and school building has also been constructed by department of education before the issuance of notification of recruitment for the post of PTMTW. In fact school is running on the gifted land since 60 years. Secondly land is in possession before the date of notification and it has been gifted verbally before the date of notification. The gift has been accepted by the department. Department has constructed school building which can be presumed as token of receipts of gift by education department. This gift has been done selfiessly by the family of appellant. In view of the facts and circumstances described above, I am of the considered ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2023 20:31:47 :::CIS 4 .
view that appellant is entitled for 8 marks of land donation certificate. A copy of this order be send to member secretary selection committee i.e. respondent No 2 with the direction to make necessary amendment in the result sheet and take further necessary action accordingly. Case file after due completion and of compliance be consigned to General record room. Announced today i.e. 27.06.2023 in the open Court."
4. rt Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule19 of the Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy.
2nd Appellate Authority while upholding the order passed by the 1 st Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in terms of order dated 07.08.2023 (Annexure P4), holding as under: "6. The arguments presented by the counsels of appellant and respondent no 4 were thoroughly heard. The case record was also examined in detail. Upon examination of the record, it is found that the family of respondent no. 4 had indeed donated land to GPS Silpadi and the school has been in possession of this land for 60 years. This fact is corroborated by the report dated 20.06.2023, from the Village Revenue Officer, Patwar Circle Tundah, which is countersigned by the Naib Tehsildar Bharmour. Although, the gift deed of the land was executed on 21.04.2022 which was after the issuance of the advertisement for the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker in the school, it is clear that the land was in the possession of the school well before the advertisement for the post. Based on the above facts, I am of the view that respondent no. 4 was entitled to 08 marks for land donation. Therefore, I find ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2023 20:31:47 :::CIS 5 .
no need to interfere with the orders passed on 27.06.2023 by the 1st Appellate Authority. Accordingly, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is rejected after due consideration. The orders be conveyed accordingly."
of
5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that while rt allowing the first appeal of the private respondent and while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Authorities in issue erred in not appreciating that as the mutation qua the land donated by the father of private respondent was entered only on 30.06.2022, i.e. after the process for filling up the posts in issue stood commenced by the Authority concerned, private respondent could not have been granted any benefit in terms of eight marks. No other point was urged.
7. On the other hand, learned Advocate General has submitted that the intent behind the policy for granting eight marks for donation of land is to give impetus to the candidates who hail from the families who have donated land for the construction of the school. He submitted that herein as the land stood donated by the father of petitioner almost sixty years back, therefore, mutation thereof may be in the month of June, 2022, did not make any difference because the policy envisages grant of eight marks for donation of land and it has got nothing to do with the date when the ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2023 20:31:47 :::CIS 6 .
mutation was actually attested.
8. Having heard counsel for the petitioner as also learned Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that the contention of the petitioner that the Authorities concerned erred in granting eight marks to the private respondent for donation of the of land by his father for the purpose of construction of the school is without any merit.
rt
9. It is not in dispute that the father of the private respondent donated 000200 bighas of land for the construction of building of Government Primary School, Silpadi, situated at Mandha, way back in the year 1961. After the death of father of the private respondent, the private respondent formally donated the land vide Gift Deed No.221/2022, dated 21.04.2022 in favour of the Education Department.
10. It is evident from the orders passed by the Authorities below that the school building is actually constructed on the land donated by the father of private respondent. It is not in dispute that a candidate whose family had donated the land for the purpose of construction of school, is entitled for eight marks as per the policy governing appointment against the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker. The condition precedent is that at the time of issuance of the advertisement, the land should be under the possession of the Education Department and it must be gifted to the department before the date of issuance of the advertisement of recruitment.
::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2023 20:31:47 :::CIS 7.
11. In the present case, the land in fact is under the possession of the Education Department since the year 1961 when the school building was constructed upon it. Though, in the present case, the Gift Deed was executed by the private respondent in favour of the State Government qua the land in issue, after the post in of issue stood advertised, but then this Court cannot ignore the fact that execution of the Gift Deed was just a formality, for the reason rt that the land was actually being utilized and occupied by the State Government since the year 1961 and it is not the contention of the petitioner nor it can be that the land was donated in the year 1961 by the father of the private respondent as he could foresee that after about sixty years, a post of Part Time Multi Task Worker would be advertised for which his son would apply and he thus would be getting advantage of the donation of the land by him to the State Government for the purpose of construction of the school building.
12. Therefore, as the act of donation of the land for the purpose of construction of the school in the year 1961 was a bonafide act of the deceased father of private respondent, this entitled him for grant of eight marks as per the policy for appointment against the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker.
Simply because the mutation was attested in the month of June, 2022 or Gift Deed was executed in the month of April, 2022, in the peculiar facts of the case these facts do not make any difference.
13. In these circumstances, as this Court does not finds any ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2023 20:31:47 :::CIS 8 .
merit in the contention of the petitioner and further as this Court does not finds any perversity in the orders passed by either of the Authority who have rightly held that the private respondent was entitled for grant of eight marks as his father had donated the land for the purpose of construction of the school, this petition being of devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
rt (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 04, 2023 (Rishi) ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2023 20:31:47 :::CIS