Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

For the petitioner : Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 6/State. Mr. Vinod Kumar Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 8.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner remained unsuccessful in the selection process for appointment as Part Time Multi Task Worker in Government Primary School Baihatna, P.O. Tritha, Tehsil Dalhousie, District Chamba. Respondent No. 8 was selected as Part Time Multi Task Worker in the aforesaid school. Petitioner's appeal against the Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
( 2025:HHC:8738 ) selection & appointment of respondent No. 8 as Part Time Multi Task Worker was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate, Chamba on 27.03.2023. Petitioner's second appeal was also dismissed by the Director of Elementary Education-cum-2nd Appellate Authority, Shimla on 30.05.2023. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner has instituted this writ petition.

2. Heard & considered the case file.

3. Petitioner alongwith other candidates participated in a selection process for the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker in GPS Baihatna, Education Block Banikhet, District Chamba. Petitioner appeared for interview for the said post on 24.06.2022. The Selection Committee selected respondent No. 8 as Part Time Multi Task Worker. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner had been adjudged first in the merit but was rejected on the ground that he had failed in the physical ability test; That such recourse was not open to the respondents; Petitioner having stood first in the merit was liable to be selected and appointed as Part Time Multi Task Worker. 

                      unemployed Families
                                          Total                      38 Marks.

The petitioner though on the basis of distribution of marks as per Notification dated 11.03.2022 secured first position, nonetheless he was found lacking in physical ability by the ( 2025:HHC:8738 ) respondents for the task of Part Time Multi Task Worker. It is not in dispute that petitioner is suffering from Cerebral Palsy (abnormal development of the part of the brain that controls movement). The petitioner is also suffering from 60% disability in relation to his both legs. Thus he is also suffering from locomotor disability. The respondents were justified in not selecting the petitioner as Part Time Multi Task Worker considering that ailments suffered by him can hinder his ability to discharge duties as per the requirement of job profile of Part Time Multi Task Worker. Clause 10(a) of the Policy gives the job profile of Part Time Multi Task Worker as under:-