Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 01.12.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 1 December, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2025:HHC:40992
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.14645 of 2024
Date of Decision: 01.12.2025
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri Rakesh Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ....Respondents
___________________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
of
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay K. Arora, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Khem Raj, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar,
Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi
rt
Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for
State.
Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
___________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
Precisely the question, which needs to be determined in the case at hand is, "whether First Appellate Authority i.e. Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, could have set aside the selection of petitioner against the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker on the ground that name of the petitioner should not have been included in the category of BPL list, especially when there was nothing on record that BPL certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the competent authority in appropriate proceedings".
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2025 20:30:02 :::CIS2025:HHC:40992 -2-
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that .
pursuant to notice/advertisement issued by the respondent-
department, petitioner along with private-respondent No.3 applied for the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker in the Government Primary School Kharothi, Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. Selection Committee found petitioner more meritorious of and accordingly appointed him vide order dated 01.10.2022 against the post in question. Respondent No.3, being aggrieved with the rt selection of the petitioner, preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority i.e. Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, District Chamba, i.e. Case No.75-3-XIII-A/2022, titled as Smt. Jaiyanti Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-SDM Salooni, Chairman Selection Committee and Others, averring that petitioner herein could not have been awarded three marks on account of his having produced BPL Certificate, which otherwise could not have been issued in his favour for the reason that his annual income was much more than the prescribed criteria. In support of her aforesaid claim, private-respondent placed on record the Bank account statement of the petitioner, suggestive of the fact that during the relevant period, there were transactions of more than ₹29,00,000/-
in the bank account of the petitioner. Additional District Magistrate ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2025 20:30:02 :::CIS 2025:HHC:40992 -3- vide order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) accepted the appeal and set aside the selection of the petitioner.
.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the First Appellate Authority i.e. Additional District Magistrate, petitioner preferred second appeal to Director, Elementary Education, in terms of Rule 19 of Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020, which also came to be dismissed. In the afore of background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main relief:
rt "I. To issue writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order passed by the Director Elementary Education on dated 06-11-2024 (Annexure P-3) setting aside the appointment of the present petition to the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker."
4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vijay K. Arora, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner is that Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, while allowing the first appeal preferred by private-respondent exceeded its jurisdiction, while returning finding upon the BPL Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority. He submitted that BPL Certificate is issued by Gram Panchayat, which in the case at hand was issued in favour of the petitioner. He submitted that till the time BPL Certificate issued by the competent authority is not laid challenge and same is not further set aside by the competent ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2025 20:30:02 :::CIS 2025:HHC:40992 -4- authority, there is no occasion, if any, for Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, to conclude that BPL Certificate adduced on .
record by the petitioner at the time of his selection, was not valid.
He further submitted that otherwise also, Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, could not have allowed the appeal of the private-respondent on the basis of report submitted by BDO of the area concerned, who categorically reported that petitioner herein of cannot be said to be at fault, because appropriate action, if any, for exclusion of name of the petitioner from the BPL list, was to be rt taken by the Gram Panchayat.
5. To the contrary, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents/State and Mr. Surinder Sharma, learned counsel representing the private-
respondent, while supporting the impugned order passed by Additional District Magistrate, Chamba and Director, Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, stated that once it stood established before Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, that petitioner herein had much more income than prescribed limit, at the time of issuance of BPL Certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the afore authority, while setting aside the selection of the petitioner against the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker. They further submitted that instead of filing the petition at hand, petitioner herein, at first instance, ought ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2025 20:30:02 :::CIS 2025:HHC:40992 -5- to have filed appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law against the order of cancellation of BPL Certificate.
.
6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that at the time of selection of the petitioner to the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker, he was in possession of BPL Certificate issued by the competent authority i.e. Panchayat Secretary/Panchayat Assistant, of Gram Panchayat Kharothi. Since Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for appointment of Part Time rt Multi Task Worker i.e. Annexure P-1, clearly provides that person, in possession of BPL Certificate, shall be entitled to three marks, no illegality otherwise can be said to have been committed by the Selection Committee while awarding three marks to the petitioner in lieu of his being falling in the category of BPL.
7. No doubt, during pendency of the appeal filed by the private-respondent before First Appellate Authority i.e. Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, it came to be transpired that more than ₹29,00,000/- was deposited in the Bank account of the petitioner during the period w.e.f. 17.12.2015 to 27.10.2022, but such fact, if any, could not be a ground for Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, to conclude that petitioner herein should not have been included in the list of BPL. The competent authority, if any, to issue the BPL Certificate or cancel the same is Gram ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2025 20:30:02 :::CIS 2025:HHC:40992 -6- Panchayat. No doubt, order passed by Gram Panchayat can be further laid challenge before the Additional District Magistrate, but .
in appropriate proceedings. Since in the instant case, issue was only with regard to selection of the petitioner to the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker and awarding of three marks on the basis of BPL Certificate adduced on record by the petitioner, Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, was only required to see whether BPL of Certificate adduced on record by the petitioner is valid or not.
Definitely in afore proceedings, he could not have gone into the rt correctness of BPL Certificate issued by the competent authority.
8. It is none of the case of the respondents that BPL Certificate, adduced on record by the petitioner, on the basis of which three marks came to be awarded to him, was forged and same was not issued by the competent authority. Till the time, BPL Certificate issued by the competent authority i.e. Gram Panchayat, is not cancelled, same was required to be considered valid. Though Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, having taken note of the report submitted by the BDO of the area concerned, may be right in concluding that petitioner should not have been included in the list of BPL, but certainly he could not have recorded a finding that awarding three marks to the petitioner on the basis of material adduced on record by him was not in accordance with law. In that situation, appropriate course for Additional District Magistrate, ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2025 20:30:02 :::CIS 2025:HHC:40992 -7- Chamba, was to direct Gram Panchayat concerned to investigate the matter with regard to the validity of BPL Certificate issued in his .
favour. It is only after the cancellation of BPL Certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat concerned, that too for the period same was issued, appointment of the petitioner against the post in question could have been ordered to be cancelled.
9. In appeal preferred by the private-respondent against of the selection of the petitioner, Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, was not competent to look into the validity/correctness of rt BPL Certificate issued by the competent authority, especially when there was no dispute with regard to its issuance by the competent authority i.e. Gram Panchayat of the area concerned. Till the time certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat is valid, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Selection Committee in awarding three marks to the petitioner.
10. This Court further finds that Director, Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, while considering the appeal preferred by the petitioner did not bother to look into the grounds, rather; he simply, on the basis of findings returned by Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, proceeded to dismiss the appeal preferred at the behest of petitioner.
11. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 04.10.2024 and 06.11.2024 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2025 20:30:02 :::CIS 2025:HHC:40992 -8- (Annexure P-2 and P-3) are quashed and set aside with the direction to Gram Panchayat of the area concerned to verify the correctness of .
allegations levelled by the private-respondent with regard to income of the petitioner during relevant period and in case Gram Panchayat, after conducting the inquiry, arrives at a conclusion that BPL Certificate issued for relevant period was not valid, it may pass appropriate orders, however, till then, petitioner on account of his of being selected against the post in question, shall be permitted to work against the post in question.
rt Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 01, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi) ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2025 20:30:02 :::CIS