Himachal Pradesh High Court
____________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. And Others on 23 August, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 7266 of 2023
Decided on: 23.08.2024
____________________________________________________
Subhadra Devi ........... petitioner
.
Versus
State of H.P. and others ..........respondents
____________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioner : Mr. Hakam Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the respondents :
Mr. Manish Thakur, Deputy
Advocate General, for the
respondents/State.
____________________________________________________
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
i. That the impugned orders dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) and 30.09.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Ld. Authorities below may very kindly be quashed and set aside.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on the recommendations of the Screening Committee held on 28.06.2022, the petitioner was offered appointment as a Part Time Multi Task Worker in Government Primary School, Gowal Tikkar, Education Block Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. She joined the post on 05.08.2022. In terms of Addendum dated 25th of August, 2022 (Annexure P-4), issued by respondent No. 1, in partial modification of Notification dated 16.07.2020, Rule 19 was 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:36:13 :::CIS 2added in the Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy, 2020, which provided as under:-
"In partial modification of this Department's Notification No.EDN-C-B(1)2/2019 dated 16 July, 2020 (as updated up to .
11 March, 2022), the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to add "Rule-19 Appellate Authority" in the Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy, 2020 as under:
19. Appellate Authority The appeal in respect of complaints relating to PTMTW selection/appointment etc. should be made to the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of the district within 15 days of the selection/ appointment. The appeal will be considered by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of the district and disposed off within 30 days from its receipt with suitable directions. If the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome, then he/she may file an appeal with the Director of Higher/Elementary Education, as the case may be, within 15 days from the decision of the Additional District Magistrate (ADM). The appellate authority may dispose off the appeal within 60 days after hearing the appellant."
3. Though in terms of this Addendum, an aggrieved party could have filed an appeal against the appointment of a Part Time Multi Task Worker within 15 days of the date of selection/appointment, yet, the private respondent assailed the appointment of the petitioner by filing an appeal (Annexure P-1) on 3rd of September, 2022, which was beyond the period prescribed in the Policy. Ignoring the fact that there was no provision of condoning delay, the appointment of the petitioner was set aside by the authority in terms of the order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, the subsequent appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the First Appellate Authority was also dismissed by the 2nd Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.09.2023, hence the petition.
::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:36:13 :::CIS 34 The issue in the case at hand is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 3384 of 2023, titled as Bindro Devi vs. State of H.P. and others. The relevant .
extract of the aforesaid judgment is being reproduced here-in-
below:
"11. It is settled law that right to file appeal is a statutory right and not a common law right. Herein this right has been conferred by respondent No. 1 to the aggrieved party vide Addendum dated 25th of August, 2022, in which 15 days' time was granted to the aggrieved party to file an appeal as from the date of selection/ appointment of the party concerned. Respondent No. 1 in its wisdom while providing the Fora for filing appeal did not make any provision therein of conferring upon the authority the right to condone delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, in these circumstances, the act of the First Appellate Authority of entertaining the appeal of the private respondent against the appointment of the petitioner beyond the period of limitation prescribed in the Policy per se was bad. The contention of learned Counsel for the respondent that this issue was not agitated by the petitioner before the authorities below is of no consequence because when the appeal admittedly was filed before the first Appellate Authority by the private respondent beyond the period of limitation, duty was cast upon the said authority to have had checked as to whether it ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:36:13 :::CIS 4 was having any jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed after the prescribed period of limitation or not. Failure to discharge this duty by the First Appellate Authority cannot be taken .
advantage of by the private respondent herein as while conferring the right of filing the appeal, the period within which said right could have been exercised was strictly defined by respondent No. 1 in the Policy without any leverage of condonation of delay in filing the appeal".
5. Accordingly, in light of the findings returned hereinabove, this petition is allowed and Order dated 30.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by First Appellate Authority and Order dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure P-2), passed by Second Appellate Authority, are quashed and set aside on the ground that the appeal filed by the private respondent against the appointment of the petitioner before the First Appellate Authority beyond the period of 15 days as from the date of appointment/joining of the petitioner was not maintainable and respondents No. 1 to 4 are directed to allow the petitioner to continue as Part Time Multi Task Worker at Government Primary School, Gowal Tikkar, Education Block Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:36:13 :::CIS 5 August 23, 2024 tarun .
r to
::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2024 20:36:13 :::CIS