Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 selected candidates had obtained Income Certificates and BPL Certificates in an illegal manner with a malafide intent, in-
" 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 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 .

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.