Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

1. "That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued by quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by respondent No.2 as well as order dated 17.07.2023 passed by respondent No.4 with all consequences.

2. That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to given appointment to the petitioner to the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker in Government Primary School Niar, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh being meritorious as well as candidate with indigent circumstances as .

compared to respondent No.6."

2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent-State notified a scheme for the recruitment of Part-time Multi Task Workers. As the petitioner was eligible to apply for the post, he applied for the same in Government Primary School Niar, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. Nineteen candidates had applied for the single post. Interviews were conducted and evaluation of the candidature of the candidates was made by the Selection Committee on 23.06.2022. According to the petitioner, he and respondent No.6 scored equal marks, but on the basis of low income certificate preference was given to respondent No.6 and he was selected. The petitioner assailed the said selection by way of CWP No.6511 of 2022. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide Annexure P-3 order dated 18.10.2022, directing the petitioner to approach Additional District Magistrate Kangra by way of an appeal.

6. The main plank of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the selection of the private respondent was bad as his real brother also was selected as a Multi Task Worker in the same process and, whereas, the brother of the private respondent was selected on 20.06.2022 .

and the private respondent was selected on 23.06.2022, therefore, his selection was bad. The second limb of arguments of the petitioner is that as the same income certificate was submitted by both the brothers, therefore, the same cannot be divided and it has to be construed that their income comes to be Rs.64,000/- per annum.

7. Both the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner are merit less. It was fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Court that at the time when the private respondent and his brother applied for being considered for the post of Multi Task Workers, they were job less. Now, incidentally, in the same process, both the brothers have been recruited as they fulfilled the eligibility criteria.

8. In terms of Annexure P-1 which is the policy relating to the recruitment of Part-time Multi Task Workers, there is no embargo therein that two unemployed brothers cannot participate in the same process on the basis of the same income certificate. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as each brother produced income certificate of Rs.32,000/- per annum, therefore, the annual income of the .