Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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

"i) To quash and set-aside Clause 7 (v) of the Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy-2020 (Annexure P-1) regarding distribution of marks whereby the SC/ST/OBC/BPL category have been clubbed together depriving the petitioner benefit of three marks for being member of BPL family in addition to three marks for belonging to SC category separately.

2024:HHC:11656 Time Multi Task Worker in GPS Dhakoli, Education Block Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P."

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that a process was undertaken by the respondents to appoint Part Time Multi Task Workers in Government Primary School Dhakoli, Education Block Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. According to the petitioner, he was selected as a Part Time Multi Task Worker vide order dated 05.07.2022. He joined as such on 07.07.2022. Feeling aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner, respondent No.8 (private respondent) filed CWP No.5408 of 2022 before this Court, which was disposed of by this Court with the direction to the said respondent to approach the Quasi Judicial Authority. Thereafter, respondent No.8 approached the Appellate Authority, which in terms of order dated 30.04.2024 allowed the appeal of said respondent and set aside the appointment of the petitioner. In terms of the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner assailed the order passed by the A.D.M. Sirmour before the next Appellate Authority, i.e. respondent No.2, which Authority in terms of order dated 14.05.2024 upheld the order passed by A.D.M. Sirmour and directed respondent No.4 to prepare a fresh result sheet. As a consequence thereof, the private respondent now stands appointed as a Part Time Multi Task Worker vide order dated 09.08.2024, which order has been assailed by the petitioner by way 2024:HHC:11656 of an appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, this Writ Petition stands filed by the petitioner, assailing the Notification (Annexure P-1), dated 11.03.2022, in terms whereof, the respondent-State framed a Recruitment Scheme titled as Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020.

4. Reply to the petition has been filed by the State, which is ordered to be taken on record.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the petition per se is not maintainable, for the reason that when the petitioner has already availed the remedy of appeal against the appointment of the private respondent, then without waiting for the outcome thereof the petitioner cannot be allowed to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. He also submitted that once the petitioner participated in the selection process knowing fully well as to what were the terms and conditions of the Notification which was governing appointment as a Part Time Multi Task Worker, he subsequently cannot be allowed to assail the conditions thereof. He further submitted that otherwise also there is no infirmity in the Notification (Annexure P-1), because in case the plea of the petitioner is accepted, then candidates like the petitioner, who 2024:HHC:11656 happen to be belonging to more than one Categories will steal a march over other candidates and will get an undue advantage, to the disadvantage of the other candidates. Accordingly, he prays that as there is no merit in the petition, the same be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

7. It is a matter of record that against the appointment of the private candidate as a Part Time Multi Task Worker, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal which is pending adjudication. In light of this fact, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot simultaneously be allowed to assail the appointment of the private respondent by way of this Writ Petition also. Therefore, it is held that challenge to the appointment of the private respondent without waiting for the adjudication of the appeal which already stands filed by the petitioner against the appointment of the private respondent, is not maintainable.