Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 26.06.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 26 June, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:4756
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 5807 of 2024
Decided on: 26.06.2024
.
Shyama ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1Yes
____________________________________________________ _
For the petitioner : M/s Hirdaya Ram and Suresh Singh
Saini, Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
r General, for the respondents-State.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
" i) Issue the appropriate writ to quash and set aside the impugned orders Annexure P-13, Annexure P-14, Annexure P-15 & Annexure P-18 in the interest of justice and fair play.
ii) Issue appropriate writ or direction to quash and set aside the illegal income certificate Annexure P-8 and illegal BPL certificate Annexure P-11 together with Annexure P- 4 & 5 qua the private respondent No. 10 & 11 and thereby quashing the appointment of the private respondent No. 10 & 11.
iii) Issue the appropriate writ or direction or order to the respondent No. 4, 7 & 9 to appoint the petitioner on the post of PTMTW in Govt. Primary School Banah- ki-ser 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:32:08 :::CIS 2
(respondent No. 9) with all consequential benefits."
2. At the very outset, this Court would like to observe that .
the petitioner in the Writ petition has not narrated even the bare minimum facts as to what has necessitated the petitioner to approach this Court. What this Court intends to say is that the narration of the facts, i.e. when was the particular Part Time Multi Task Worker post advertised, for which place, the petitioner alongwith other incumbents participated in the process when, when was the result declared, and thereafter chronologically how the things happened has not been narrated in the Writ petition and the petitioner wants the Court to have a self-knowledge of all these facts.
3. Be that as it may, what can be inferred by the Court from the pleadings as well as documents appended with the petition is as follows:-
In the process undertaken by the Authority to appoint Multi Task Workers in GPS Banah Nathu and GPS Banah-Ki-Ser, Elementary Education Block, Sarahan, District Sirmour, H.P., Smt. Manisha and Shri Kamal Singh were successful. Feeling aggrieved by the appointment of the said incumbents, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 19 of the Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020. In terms of Annexure P-15, dated 27.12.2023, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal. The challenge to the appointment of the selected candidates by the petitioner was on the ground that the ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:32:08 :::CIS 3 selected candidates had obtained Income Certificates and BPL Certificates in an illegal manner with a malafide intent, in-
.
connivance with certain officials and therefore, the Income Certificate and BPL Certificate of the private respondents were liable to be quashed and set aside being illegal and unjust. The Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal observed that the parties were summoned, Block Elementary Education Officer, Sarahan on his and on behalf of Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Pachhad, filed reply to the appeal, stating therein that the marks were awarded to the candidates in accordance with the Guidelines contained H.P. Government Notification, dated 07.04.2022 and clarification dated 24.05.2022. The BPL Certificates stood issued in favour of the parties by the Competent Authority and income as was mentioned in the Income Certificates issued in favour of the candidates was not counted for awarding the marks to any of the candidate. As per Tehsildar, Pachhad, Income Certificates were issued in favour of an applicant under the provisions of Para 28.5 (8) of Himachal Pradesh Land Record Manual and were correctly issued. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Banah Dhitri on his behalf and on behalf of the Gram Panchayat concerned stated that the families under BPL were selected in the meeting of the Gram Sabha of the concerned Gram Panchayat after due verification and the families of the respondents concerned, who were having the BPL Certificates, were issued said ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:32:08 :::CIS 4 certificates by following the process of law. On the basis of said stand of the respondents, learned Appellate Authority held that as .
nothing material found was to interfere with the result, in terms whereof, the private respondents were selected, therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
4. The second appeal filed by the petitioner before the 2 nd Appellate Authority met with the same fate. This appeal was dismissed in terms of order dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure P-18) by Director, Elementary Education, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. After taking note of the respective contentions of the parties, the 2nd Appellate Authority held that it had heard the arguments of all the parties and also examined the record. It rejected the second appeal by assigning the following reasons:-
" 6. The arguments presented by the counsel of the appellant and Respondent No.10 & 11 were thoroughly heard,and the case record was also examined in detail. Upon examination of the record, it is found that Respondent No. 10 and 11 both applied for the post of Part Fine Multi Task Worker in GPS Banah Nathu and both applicants scored 28 marks, but, Respondent No.11 came first in the merit list on the basis of age in accordance with the Government clarification dated 24.05.2022. However, Respondent No. 11 did not join as Part Time Multi Task Worker in GPS Banah Nathu since he had also applied for the same post in GPS Banah-ke- Ser along with the appellant, where Respondent No.11 ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:32:08 :::CIS 5 scored maximum marks and got selected. Consequently, Respondent No. 10 was selected in GPS Banah Nathu for being second in the merit list, while Respondent No.11 .
was selected in GPS Banah-ke-Ser for scoring the highest marks. Both Respondent No. 10 & 11 received 03 marks for the BPL certificate produced by them. Now, as per the contention of the appellant, the primary issue to be decided here is whether Respondent No. 10 & 11 were eligible to receive 03 marks for the BPL certificate or not.
The perusal of the record shows that the BPL Certificate was issued to Respondent No.10 & 11 by the competent authority. Authority, as per the inquiry report submitted by the Block Development Officer, Development Block Pachaad, to the SDO(C) Pachhad, the family of Respondent No. 11 was included in the BPL Category after passing of a resolution in the Gram Sabha meeting on 02.10.2021. Regarding the appellant's contention about the income certificate of Respondent No. 10 & 11, the perusal of the record shows that the appellant had filed an appeal against the issuance of the income certificate, which was dismissed by the SDM Pachhad vide order dated 30.09.2023. Also, the income certificate is only considered when there is a tie in the marks, but in the case of the appellant, there was no tie in the marks between the appellant and Respondent No. 11 for the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker in GPS Banah ke Ser. Therefore, in view of the aforementioned facts, I find no infirmity in the order passed on 27.12.2023, by the ADM Sirmaur. Accordingly, I see no merit in the present appeal, and it is rejected after due consideration. The orders be conveyed accordingly."::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:32:08 :::CIS 6
5. Now, by way of this Writ petition, the petitioner assails these two orders as well as Annexures P-13 and P-14, which were .
the orders, passed on 30.09.2023, in terms whereof, the appeals filed by the petitioner against the issuance of Income Certificates and BPL Certificates were rejected by the Authority concerned.
6. At the very outset, this Court would like to make an observation that the appeal filed by the petitioner under Chapter 28 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Record Manual, as amended vide Notification dated 09.01.2012 of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Revenue, wherein she had challenged the Income Certificates of the private parties was rejected on 30.09.2023. Similarly, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the issuance of a BPL Certificate in favour of the private respondents was also decided by the Competent Authority on 30.09.2023. The petitioner did not challenge these two orders after their pronouncement. Therefore, as on the date when the appeals filed by the petitioner against the selection of the private respondents as Part Time Multi Task Workers were decided by the 1 st Authority and the 2nd Authority, the orders passed by the Authorities on the appeals of the petitioner against issuance of BPL Certificates and Income Certificates, were in force. Nothing stopped the petitioner from assailing Annexures P-13 and P-14 before the Competent Authority or the Competent Court of Law, but the petitioner chose not to do so ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:32:08 :::CIS 7 and thus acquiesced with the findings so returned by the Authorities. Not only this, even after the adjudication upon the issue .
by the Competent Authority, it ventured to argue its appeals on the said decided points, under the Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy Scheme.
7. This Court is of the considered view that this act and conduct of the petitioner now precludes it from maintaining and filing this Writ petition. The reason, as to why this Court is making the said observation is that a prudent litigant if dissatisfied with the adjudication by the Authorities wherein in terms of Annexures P-13 and P-14, its appeals were dismissed, would have had immediately assailed the orders. However, the petitioner did not do so. No cogent explanation during the course of arguments came from learned counsel as to why this was not done. Thereafter, the appeals which were decided under the Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy Scheme, were decided in the backdrop of adjudication on BPL Certificates and Income Certificates, having attained finality.
8. Even otherwise, this Court is of the considered view that irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner argued about the legality of BPL Certificates and Income Certificates before the Appellate Authorities under the Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy Scheme, the Appellate Authority under the said Policy was not competent also to decide whether said certificates were good ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:32:08 :::CIS 8 or bad. Incidently, they have not done so. The reasons that stand spelled out in their orders as to why to why they were not concurring .
with the submissions of the petitioner are otherwise also prudent, rational and do not call for any judicial scrutiny as no perversity therein could be pointed out in light of there being no earlier challenge to Annexures P-13 and P-14.
9. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, as this Court does not finds that any interference is required in the impugned orders by this Court, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 26, 2024 (Rishi) ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:32:08 :::CIS