Himachal Pradesh High Court
_____________________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Others on 25 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.2007 of 2024
.
Date of Decision: 25.04.2024
_____________________________________________________________________
Subhash Chand
.........petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others .......respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Mr. Vishal Singh Thakur, Advocate
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, General, with Mr.
Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C.
Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr.
Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for
respondents.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Pursuant to order dated 15th March, 2024 passed by this Court, whereby learned Additional Advocate General came to be directed to have instructions on or before the next date of hearing to the effect that why despite petitioner's having been declared successful, he is not being offered appointment against the post of Multi Task Worker, learned Additional Advocate General has made available communication dated 10th April, 2024 issued under the signatory of Block Elementary Education Officer Sunder Nagar- 2nd District Mandi, H.P., enclosing therewith minutes of meeting held on ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2024 20:35:08 :::CIS -2- 12th September, 2023 of the Committee constituted for selection of Multi Task Worker in the Government Primary School Sawal, District Mandi, perusal whereof reveals that though pursuant to direction .
issued in order dated 06.05.2023 passed by the 2nd Appellate Authority i.e. Director Elementary Education Himachal Pradesh, whereby an appeal under clause 19 of the Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020 came to be allowed, Selection Committee considered the case of the petitioner afresh taking into account disability certificate dated 03.12.2011 produced by the petitioner.
Since the physical and mental health of the petitioner was not found to be appropriate, he was not offered appointment despite his having secured more marks than respondent No.7 Smt. Narmada Devi..
2. Precisely the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that pursuant to advertisement notice for filling up various posts of Multi Task Worker (hereinafter referred to as MTW), petitioner applied for the said post in question on 27.04.2022. Though, petitioner was called for verifications of the documents on 06.06.2022, but was not offered appointment, rather respondent No.7 came to be declared successful. Since petitioner was not awarded eight marks qua his being disabled to the extent of 75%, he had filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 6413 of 2022 titled "Subhash Chand vs. State of H.P." and others , which came to be disposed of with a direction to file an appeal before ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2024 20:35:08 :::CIS -3- the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Mandi, District Mandi, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 16.03.2023 (Annexure P-3).
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order .
passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Mandi District Mandi, petitioner filed an appeal before the Director Elementary Eduction-cum-2nd Appellate Authority Shimla, who after having perused the disability certificate adduced on record by the petitioner, set aside the order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate with the direction to selection committee to call the appellant again and reconsider his case taking into account the disability certificate dated 03.12.2011 and redraw the result accordingly. While passing afore direction, appellant authority observed in the order that if the appellant comes at first position in the merit after the result is redrawn, his appointment would be subject to the satisfaction of the selection committee that appellant is of sound mind and capable to perform the duties outlined in the job profile of Multi Task Worker.
4. Pursuant to order dated 06.05.2023 passed by Director Elementary Education, the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 12th September, 2023 reconsidered the case of the petitioner, wherein eight marks qua the disability certificate produced by petitioner came to be awarded, but since the committee in terms of order dated 10th April 2024, did not find petitioner's physical and mental health ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2024 20:35:08 :::CIS -4- appropriate, his name was not recommended in the aforesaid backdrop, hence, the petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings.
.
5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that 2nd Appellate Authority while directing the selection committee to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh specifically reserved liberty to selection committee to record the satisfaction with regard to mental health of the petitioner. No doubt in the case at hand, petitioner ought to have been granted 8 marks for selection committee on account of his being disabled to the extent of 75% as is evident from the disability certificate placed on record, but yet Selection Committee was reserved liberty by the 2nd Appellate Authority to ascertain suitability of the petitioner for the post in question on account of his mental health. Though petitioner got 8 marks more than the private respondent but since Selection Committee, while preparing the result did not find him to be of sound mind thus not capable to perform the duties mentioned in the job profile of Multi Task Worker, therefore, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the authority while passing impugned order. Minutes of the meeting placed on record reveals that being Multi Task Worker, a person is required to travel approximately 4 k.m. everyday to a place where mid day meal is prepared. Apart from above, Multi Task Worker is also required to ::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2024 20:35:08 :::CIS -5- deliver correspondence from one school to another, which petitioner may not be able to do on account of his being disabled to the extent of 75%.
.
Consequently, in view of the above facts noted hereinabove, vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and as such same is upheld, as a result whereof the petition fails and is dismissed, alongwith pending applications, if any.
April 25th 20234 (Sandeep Sharma),
tarun
r Judge
::: Downloaded on - 03/05/2024 20:35:08 :::CIS