Dismissed¶62

Sarita Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Mar 2025CWP/2870/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No.2870 of 2025, decided on 18.03.2025 by Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla): writ petition by an unsuccessful candidate challenging the selection of respondent No.6 as Part-Time Multi Task Worker dismissed; the Court found no BPL marks were allotted to respondent No.6, that the petitioner had already received the maximum 08 widow marks under Clause 7(iii) of the PTMTW Policy, 2020 precluding further marks, and that her 30-vs-38 marks contention was neither correct nor raised below.

What did the court decide?

The final panel (Annexure P-12) clearly shows respondent No.6 was not allotted any marks under the BPL category; therefore the petitioner's first contention lacks merit and no error was committed by the authorities below. ¶38

Sarita Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:HHC:6336

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.2870 of 2025 Decided on: 18^th March, 2025

¶4

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarita Devi …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.

¶11

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5-State.

¶12

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶13

Petitioner has not been successful in her challenge to the selection and appointment of respondent No.6 as Part-Time Multi Task Worker at Government Primary School (GPS) Manthla, Education Block Saigloo, District Mandi. Hence, the writ petition.

¶14

2. Factual matrix:-

¶15

2(i). Respondents conducted a selection process for engagement of a Part-Time Multi Task Worker at GPS Manthla on 10.06.2022. Petitioner, respondent No.6 and

¶16

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶17

¶18

2025:HHC:6336

¶19

several other candidates participated in the selection process. Respondent No.6 emerged successful. She was accordingly appointed as Part-Time Multi Task Worker in the aforesaid school.

¶20

2(ii). Petitioner filed an appeal on 30.12.2022 under Rule 19 of the Part-Time Multi Task Worker Policy (in short ‘PTMTW Policy’) against the selection of respondent No.6. Her bone of contention was that respondent No.6 had procured a Below Poverty Line (BPL) certificate by practicing fraud. She had concealed her actual income. That respondent No.6 had been wrongly awarded 03 marks for belonging to BPL family. These 03 marks were required to be taken out from the total tally of 28 marks awarded to respondent No.6. In case this is done, then the petitioner, who has been awarded 25 marks, would be selected.

¶21

2(iii). The Additional District Magistrate, Mandi, acting as appellate authority, dismissed petitioner’s appeal on 21.03.2024. While dismissing the appeal, it was noticed that :- (a) Liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge respondent No.6’s BPL certificate by way of appeal. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar enquired into the matter and accordingly submitted his report on 11.07.2023. This report was not challenged by the affected parties. The

¶22

¶23

2025:HHC:6336

¶24

appeal was heard on the request of learned counsel on both sides, who prayed for proceeding directly for argument on the main appeal; (b) The allegation of the petitioner that 03 marks have been awarded to respondent No.6 in view of her BPL certificate was found to be false. Respondent No.6 was not allotted any marks in lieu of her BPL certificate; (c) Petitioner even otherwise was at Sr. No.3 of the merit list. There was one more candidate, who had scored 28 marks in the selection process, but had not been impleaded by the petitioner. That other candidate was not selected in view of respondent No.6 being older in age to her.

¶25

2(iv). Petitioner instituted further appeal before the Director Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh-cum-2^nd Appellate Authority on 19.04.2024. This appeal was also dismissed on 08.05.2024.

¶26

It is in the above background that the petitioner has instituted this writ petition.

¶27

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends

¶28

that:-

¶29

3(i). Respondent No.6 has been wrongly awarded 03 marks in lieu of her BPL Certificate.

¶30

¶31

2025:HHC:6336

¶32

3(ii). Petitioner belongs to an indigent family and was

¶33

entitled to 05 marks on that account in accordance with the selection criteria under the PTMTW Policy.

¶34

3(iii). Petitioner has been awarded marks out of 30 marks, as against total 38 marks, qua which the selection criteria has been prescribed.

¶35

3(iv). Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record instructions memo dated 05.03.2025 from the Director Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, reiterating the stand of the respondents as taken before the authorities below.

¶36

4. The contentions of the petitioner are not

¶37

borne out from the record.

¶38

4(i). The petitioner has annexed the final panel drawn for the recruitment process to the post of Part-Time Multi Task Worker in GPS Manthla, Education Block Saigloo, District Mandi as Annexure P-12 with the writ petition. It is clearly evident from the aforesaid document that respondent No.6 has not been allotted any marks under the BPL category. Therefore, first contention of the petitioner lacks merit. No error has been committed by the authorities below in this regard.

¶39

¶40

2025:HHC:6336

¶41

4(ii). Petitioner’s next contention that she was

¶42

entitled to 05 marks for belonging to indigent family is also incorrect. The selection criteria prescribed under the PTMTW Policy, 2020 goes as under:-

¶43

“7. Selection Criteria/Marks (as amended upto date)

¶44

i) The selection committee shall judge the suitability of the candidates purely on merit. The Chairman/Member Secretary of the committee will keep complete record of the selection process.

¶45

ii) The selection committee shall hold counseling by calling all the eligible candidates.

¶46

iii) Preference will be given to candidates who are from families without any member in Govt. service.

¶47

iv) The selection will be purely specific to a particular school only.

¶48

v) In the selection process marks shall be awarded to the candidates out of 38.

¶49

The distribution of marks shall be as under:-

¶50

i. Distance from Schools (08 Marks) (Certificate to be issued by Panchayat Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat for rural areas and Executive Officer of Urban Local Bodies for urban areas) For candidates: (a) From the same ward of the Gram Panchayat/Urban 08 Marks Local Body in which school is situated

¶51

(b) From the other wards of the Gram Panchayat/Urban 06 Marks Local Body in which school is situated (c) From the adjoining contiguous Gram 02 Marks Panchayat/Urban Local Body in which school is situated ii. Education Qualifications (08 Marks) If Class 5^th passed 05 Marks If Class 8^th passed 08 Marks iii. Allocation to various categories: (08 Marks) (a) Widows/Orphans/persons with benchmark 08 Marks disabilities (b) Person living in extreme indigent conditions 05 Marks (c) Women deserted by husbands 03 Marks

¶52

¶53

2025:HHC:6336

¶54

iv. For candidates whose families have donated land for 08 Marks school

¶55

v. Candidates belonging to SC/ST/ OBC/BPL 03 Marks vi. Candidates belonging to unemployed Families 03 Marks Total 38 Marks”

¶56

Clause 7(iii) provides a maximum of 08 marks and a minimum of 03 marks. It is clearly evident from the final panel drawn for the recruitment process to the post in question that the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 had been awarded 08 marks each for being widows. They having been allotted 08 marks, therefore, could not have been allotted any further marks under Clause 7(iii).

¶57

4(iii). Petitioner’s contention that she has been awarded marks out of 30 marks and not out of total 38 marks is also incorrect. Under Clause 7 of the PTMTW Policy, the distribution of marks is:- 7(i)- 08 marks, 7(ii)- 08 marks, 7(iii)-08 marks, 7(iv)-08 marks, 7(v)-03 marks and 7(vi)-03 marks, i.e. total 38 marks. It is not understandable as to how the petitioner contends that she has been allotted marks out of total 30 marks and not 38 marks. Moreover, it was not even her contention before the authorities below.

¶58

5. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined

¶59

to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the authorities below. There is no merit in the

¶60

¶61

2025:HHC:6336

¶62

instant writ petition. The same is dismissed alongwith

¶63

pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶64