Himachal Pradesh High Court
Koishudhar vs State Of H.P on 3 June, 2022
Bench: Sabina, Satyen Vaidya
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE, 2022 .
BEFORE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 3522 of 2022 Between:-
BHOJ PAL, AGED 23 YEARS SON OF SHRI SADHU SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOISHUDHAR, P.O. THELLA, TEHSIL BHUNTAR, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P. .....PETITIONER (BY MR. AJAY CHANDEL, ADV.) AND
1. STATE OF H.P., THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.
2. THE DIRECTOR (ELEMENTARY EDUCATION) GOVT. OF H.P.,SHIMLA 171001.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, KULLU, DISTRICT KILLU, H.P.
4. SECRETARY, SELECTION COMMITTEE, PTMTW-CUM-BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCTION OFFICER, KULLU-1 AT SHAMSHI, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.
5. CHAIRMAN, SELECTION COMMITTEE, PTMTW-CUM-SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL) KULLU, DISTRICT KULLU,H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2022 20:03:13 :::CIS 2 .....RESPONDENTS (MR. ASHWANI SHARMA, .
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS).
CWP No. 3527 of 2022Between:-
MEERA DEVI W/O CHANDRAMANI R/O VILLAGE TUNDHLA, P.O. NAGDHAR, TEHSIL SADAR, TUNDHALA (443), MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH .....PETITIONER (BY MR. AMIT SINGH CHANDEL, ADVOCATE) AND
1. STATE OF H.P., THROUGH SECRETARY (EDUCATION) H.P. SECRETARIAT, SHIMLA-2.
2. THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, LALPANI SCHOOL ROAD, SHIMLA H.P. 171 001
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, DASHIR RD., TARANA, MANDI H.P. - 175001
4. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, BLOCK SADAR - II, KATOLA, MANDI H.P.
5. SUB DIVISONAL OFFICER (CIVIL)
-CUM-CHAIRMAN SELECTION COMMITTEE, SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2022 20:03:13 :::CIS 3
6. PRESIDENT, SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, GOVT. PRIMARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL NAGDHAR, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTT. MANDI.
.
.....RESPONDENTS (MR. ASHWANI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS).
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sabina, passed the following:
r ORDER Vide this order, above mentioned two petitions, would be disposed of as controversy involved in both the cases is common.
2. Petitioners have filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the notification dated 24th May, 2022 defining the word 'family' and it has been prayed that the petitioner may be granted eight marks as per Clause 7 of the Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the policy) under the head "For candidates whose families have donated land for school".
3. Learned counsel for petitioner Meera Devi has submitted that the father-in-law of the petitioner had registered a Gift Deed donating land to the Government Primary School Nagdhar. Hence, the petitioner falls within the category of candidates whose family had donated land for school and was entitled for grant of eight marks under ::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2022 20:03:13 :::CIS 4 Clause 7 of the Policy. The clarification issued by the respondents by restricting the meaning of term 'family' to be land donor or his/her .
spouse and their children was liable to be set-aside. The objective of the policy was to provide employment to the eligible candidates in schools.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner Bhoj Pal has submitted that the grandfather of the petitioner had executed a gift deed dated 22nd January, 1997 for construction of Government Primary School, Koishudhar at Phati Parli, Kothi Kot Kandi. Hence, the petitioner was liable to be granted eight marks under the category of candidates whose family have donated land for school, under clause 7 of the Policy. Learned counsel has also submitted that the clarification issued by the respondents with regard to the definition of term of 'family' was liable to be set-aside, as it has no purpose to achieve.
5. Notification has been issued with regard to the "Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020". In both the petitions, the said notification has been placed on record as Annexure P-1/P-2. The objective of the scheme is as under:-
(a) To provide Part Time Multi Task Worker in all the Schools in Himachal Pradesh through creation of new posts.
(b) To encourage decentralization of powers by empowering the SMCs in the effective running of Govt.
Schools.
::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2022 20:03:13 :::CIS 5(c) To provide an opportunity for the eligible unemployed candidates to earn honorarium at Local level.
.
6. As per clause 7 of the policy, selection criteria/marks liable to be awarded to the candidates have been enumerated. So far as candidates whose families have donated land for schools are to be awarded eight marks.
7. Some clarifications were sought on different issues by various quarters with regard to the allocation of marks and validity of various certificates/documents, etc. In this regard, the impugned clarification was issued on 24th May, 2022. A perusal of the said clarification reveals that a Committee had been constituted to examine the issues raised during recruitment process for engagement of part time multi task workers. On the basis of the recommendation of the Committee a clarification was issued on 24th May, 2022. A perusal of the clarification No. 4 reveals that term 'family' will be "land owner or his/her spouse or children". The said clarification has been issued by the respondents with a view to achieve the purpose of the scheme.
This Court while exercising extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in the meaning given by the respondents vis-à-vis term 'family'. As per the term 'family' defined for the purpose of the policy, both the petitioners do not fall within the definition of family. The respondents in their wisdom, with a ::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2022 20:03:13 :::CIS 6 view to effectively implement the Policy, have defined term 'family' vide impugned recommendation dated 24th May, 2022. There is nothing on .
record to suggest that the definition of term 'family' has been given for any malafide or extraneous consideration.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no ground for interference is made out. Both the petitions are dismissed.
9. disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand (Sabina) Acting Chief Justice (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 3rd June, 2022 (tm) ::: Downloaded on - 04/06/2022 20:03:13 :::CIS