Disposed

Murli Ram v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Nov 2022CWP/5711/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a recruitment appointment, transferring the petitioner to approach the newly constituted appellate authority, the Additional District Magistrate, under a post-selection addendum regarding appointment appeals.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to approach Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Mandi, by way of an appeal within 15 days under the newly added Rule-19.

Murli Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

ON THE 11^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶6

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL KUKREJA

¶8

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 5711 of 2022

¶9

Between:-

¶10

MURLI RAM S/O SH. BHAGI RATH, AGED 21 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE CHHATER, POST OFFICE BHADERWAR, TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HP.

¶11

….PETITIONER

¶12

(BY MS. RICHA THAKUR, ADVOCATE) AND

¶13

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY(EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2;

¶14

2. DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-1;

¶15

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, MANDI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH;

¶16

4. BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER, GOPALPUR-1, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH;

¶17

¶18

5. SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE POST OF PART TIME MULTI TASK WORKER FOR GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL CHHATER TANDOH THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER(CIVIL), SARKAGHAT, MANDI, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH;

¶19

6. GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL CHHATER TANDOH UNDER COMPLEX GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, BHADERWAR, EDUCATION BLOCK GOPALPUR-1 DISTRICT MANDI, HP THROUGH ITS HEADMASTER/PRINCIPAL.

¶20

7. SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL CHHATER TANDOH UNDER COMPLEX, GOVERNMENT SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL, BHADERWAR, EDUCATION BLOCK GOPALPUR-1, DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT;

¶21

8. VIKASH SHARMA S/O SH. SHIV KUMAR R/O VILL. CHHATER TANDOH, PO BHADERWAR, TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, HP.

¶22

….RESPONDENTS

¶23

(MR. GAURAV SHARMA & MS. DIVYA SOOD, DEPUTY ADVOCATES GENERAL, FOR R-1 TO R-6)

¶24

This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon’ble

¶25

Ms. Justice Sabina , passed the following:

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Petitioner has filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:-

¶28

¶29

“i. That the offer of appointment made to the private respondent on 15.6.2022 (Annexure P-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside;

¶30

ii. That the income certificate issued in favour of private respondent (Annexure P-7) and non-employment certificate, which could not be procured by the petitioner, may kindly be called for from the respondents after taking the same on record, same may kindly be quashed and set aside;

¶31

iii. That the respondent No.5 may kindly be directed to reassess the merit of the candidates appeared in interview dated 24.5.2022 for the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker in Government Middle School Chhater Tandoh after excluding 03 marks for nonemployment status and if the petitioner is found top in merit, he may be offred appointment to the post in question;

¶32

iv. That the respondents may kindly be directed to give preference to the petitioner, on the basis of lower family income as per Clause 3 of clarification dated 24.5.2022, if this Hon’ble Court comes to the conclusion that there is a tie situation.”

¶33

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now

¶34

vide Addendum dated 25^th August, 2022, Rule-19 has been added to the policy and as per the said rule, appeal can be filed before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of the district within 15 days of the selection/appointment. In the present case, the result was declared on 15^th June, 2022. Hence, the petitioner would not be able to avail the

¶35

¶36

benefit of newly added Rule-19. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner will approach the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Mandi, District Mandi, by way of an appeal, within 15 days from today and the same should not be rejected by the competent authority on the ground that it is time barred as the Rule-19 has been incorporated on 25^th August, 2022.

¶37

3 . Rule-19, provided vide Addendum dated 25^th August,

¶38

2022, reads as under:-

¶39

“ ADDENDUM

¶40

In partial modification of this Department's Notification No. EDN-C-B(1)2/2019 dated 16^th July, 2020 (as updated upto 11^th March, 2022), the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to add "Rule19 Appellate Authority" in the Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy, 2020 as under:

¶41

19. Appellate Authority :

¶42

The appeal in respect of complaints relating to PTMTW selection/appointment etc. should be made to the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of the district within 15 days of the selection/appointment. The appeal will be considered by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) of the district and disposed off within 30 days from its receipt with suitable directions. If the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome, then he/she may file an appeal with the Director of Higher/Elementary Education, as the case may be, within 15 days from the decision of the Additional District Magistrate (ADM). The appellate authority may dispose off the appeal within 60 days after hearing the appellant.

¶43

By Order

¶44

Devesh Kumar, IAS Pr. Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.”

¶45

¶46

4 . Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel

¶47

for the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to approach Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Mandi, District Mandi, by way of an appeal, within 15 days from today and the said authority will dispose of the appeal in terms of Rule19, provided vide Addendum dated 25^th August, 2022.

¶48

5. It is clarified that the appeal filed by the petitioner would not be rejected on the ground of delay, but would be disposed of on

¶49

merits.

¶50

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand

¶51

disposed of.

¶52

(Sabina) Judge

¶53

(Sushil Kukreja ) Judge

¶54

November 11, 2022 (Guleria)

Murli Ram v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murli Ram v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Chander Vs Union of India and Others

Amar Dev Vs Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Hp

Rohit Kumar Choudhary Vs Hpsebl

Shyama Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Neel Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.