Sanyogita Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

¶1

2025:HHC:26439

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.5505 of 2023

¶4

Reserved on: 22.07.2025 Date of Decision: 06.08.2025

¶5

__________________________________________________________ Smt. Sanyogita Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ….Respondents _________________________________________________________ Coram:_ Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath and Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for respondent No.6. __________________________________________________________

¶6

Sandeep Sharma, Judge :

¶7

Vide Notification No.EDN-C-B(1)2/2019 dated 16.07.2020, the Government of Himachal Pradesh framed and notified the recruitment scheme titled as ‘Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy 2020’ for appointment of Part Time Multi Task Workers in the Government Schools of Himachal Pradesh under the Higher & Elementary Education Department. The Recruitment Scheme provides for the complete procedure/method for selection, constitution of selection committee, eligibility criteria, quantum of honorarium, method of awarding marks under various heads, terms and conditions of service etc. (Annexure P-

¶8

1).

¶9

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

2025:HHC:26439

¶11

-2-

¶12

To clarify doubts regarding the policy, the Director of Elementary Education issued a communication on 24.05.2022 addressed to all Deputy Directors of Elementary Education (Annexure P- 2). On 25.08.2022, an addendum was also issued introducing Rule 19 to the recruitment scheme dated 16.07.2020, prescribing therein an appeal mechanism regarding Part Time Multi Task Worker selection/appointment. For the sake of clarity, Rule 19 is reproduced herein below:

¶13

“19. Appellate Authority:

¶14

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.”

¶15

2.1. Rule 19, which has been incorporated by way of the addendum, specifically states that appeal in respect of the complaints relating to Part Time Multi Task Worker selection/appointment etc., should be made to the ADM of the district within 15 days of selection/appointment, which shall be disposed of by the said officer within 30 days of its receipt. It has further been stipulated in the addendum that if the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome of the

¶16

2025:HHC:26439

¶17

-3-

¶18

appeal, so preferred, he/she may file appeal to the Director of Higher/Elementary Education, within 15 days from the date of decision by the ADM, who shall dispose the same within 60 days after hearing the appellant (Annexure P-3).

¶19

One post of Part Time Multi Task Worker at Government Primary School (GPS) Kolka, District Una, was lying vacant and in that regard a Public notice was issued to fill up the post. Since the Petitioner was fully eligible for the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker, she also submitted her application for consideration. The Petitioner was found eligible and was selected based on the criteria prescribed in the recruitment scheme (Annexure P-4 and P-5). Petitioner was offered appointment vide order dated 04.07.2022 on fixed honorarium of Rs.5625/- per month for 10 months in an academic year (Annexure P-6) and she joined her duties on 06.07.2022, as is evident from the charge assuming report (Annexure P-7). She was awarded 5 marks under the head of indigence based on a certificate issued by the competent authority (Annexure P-8), valid from 08.12.2021 for a period of one year. 4. Private respondent No.6 i.e. Ms. Rajni Devi, challenged petitioner’s appointment, specifically raising the issue of validity of the Indigent Certificate and made a complaint to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Una on 01.08.2022 (Annexures R-II). Deputy Commissioner, Una vide letter dated 04.08.2022 requested the SubDivisional Officer, Bangana, Una to enquire into the matter and submit a

¶20

2025:HHC:26439

¶21

-4-

¶22

report thereto (Annexure R-III). It is evident from communication dated 15.09.2022 that Naib Tehsildar called for a field report and submitted the report to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Bangana, District Una, Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-9). Perusal of afore communication reveals that father-in-law of the petitioner has 0-42-390 hectares of land in his name and a pucca house where he lives along with his son and his wife-petitioner jointly.

¶23

Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Bangana, Una, vide letter dated 05.01.2023 reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Una that no land is recorded in the name of the petitioner, however, land measuring 0-42-390 hectares is recorded in the ownership of Mr. Suresh Kumar i.e. father-in-law of the petitioner. It was reported in afore letter that petitioner along with her husband and father-in-law resides in a pucca (lanterposh) house, consisting of one room and one kitchen, which had been constructed 4 years back by the father-in-law. It was also reported in the afore letter that Mr. Vipin Kumar i.e. husband of petitioner had applied to obtain income certificate and at that time occupation of Mr. Vipin Kumar was recorded as labour and occupation of his father (Mr. Suresh Kumar) was recorded as Agriculture in the Pariwar register (Annexure R-V).

¶24

Consequently, Naib Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil Bihru Kalan, issued certificate showing family income of Rs.34,900/-. On the basis of this income certificate along with an affidavit sworn by petitioner, she applied for Indigent Certificate which was issued by Naib Tehsildar, Sub-

¶25

2025:HHC:26439

¶26

-5-

¶27

Tehsil Bihru Kalan, Una on 08.12.2021 (Annexure P-8). Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Bangana, Una, vide afore report dated 05.01.2023 submitted that the Indigent Certificate has been issued ignoring the guidelines contained in government letter No.Per (AP-II) F (4)-4/88-III and further recommended to cancel the said certificate. Thereafter, Deputy Commissioner, Una vide office letter dated 24.01.2023 giving reference of aforesaid letter dated 05.01.2023 asked the SDO (Civil) Bangana, Una, to adhere to provisions laid down in Para 28.19 of Chapter 28 of H.P. Land Records Manual, 1992 and directed Naib Tehsildar, Bihru Kalan to act accordingly. SDO (Civil) Bangana, Una vide office endorsement dated 10.02.2023 forwarded same to Naib Tehsildar, Bihru Kalan.

¶28

On receipt of afore letter dated 10.02.2023, from SubDivisional Officer, Bangana, a notice was sent to petitioner to appear before him on 22.02.2023, on which day the petitioner was heard and was granted another date to produce some documents, but she failed to produce anything to substantiate her claim. Subsequently, on the basis of SDO’s order, Naib Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Vihadu Kalan, Una, cancelled the petitioner’s Indigent Certificate bearing No.IN2021126164847275 (Annexure P-10). On the basis of such cancellation, an appeal was preferred by Smt. Rajni Devi-Respondent No.6 (titled Smt. Rajni Devi vs Smt. Sanyogita Devi, Case No.03/2022) against the appointment of the petitioner before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Una, which was

¶29

2025:HHC:26439

¶30

-6-

¶31

allowed vide judgment dated 27.07.2023, on the ground that since Indigent Certificate stood cancelled by the competent authority, through inquiry and appointment of Ms. Sanyogita Devi i.e. petitioner herein is set-aside (Annexure P-11).

¶32

After passing of afore judgment dated 27.07.2023, Block Elementary Education, Bangana, Una-respondent No.5 issued office order dated 28.07.2023, thereby terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect (Annexure P-12). Consequently, vide relieving order dated 31.07.2023, petitioner was relieved from her duties as Part Time Multi Task Worker from GPS Kolka, Education Block, Bangana, Una (Annexure P-13). Petitioner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by afore impugned action of respondents in rejecting her candidature, has approached this Court by way of present petition, praying therein following main reliefs:

¶33

“A. That a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the Impugned Order dated 24.02.2023 contained in Annexure P-10, judgment dated 27.07.2023 contained in Annexure P-11, Office Order dated 28.07.2023 contained in Annexure P-12 and Relieving order dated 31.07.2023 contained in Annexure P-13.

¶34

B. That a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue as Part Time Multi Task Worker at GPS Kolka, Education Block Bangana, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.”

¶35

9. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings,

¶36

respondents No.3, 4 and 6 have filed replies, perusal whereof suggests that there is no dispute as far as facts noticed hereinabove are concerned. Respondents No.3 & 4 in their reply have stated that present

¶37

2025:HHC:26439

¶38

-7-

¶39

petition is not maintainable on account of the fact that petitioner has approached this Court without exhausting the remedy available to her under Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020, wherein, there is a provision of appeal against the order passed by Additional District Magistrate to the Director of Higher/Elementary Education. Besides above, it has been further averred in the reply that since Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Bangana, District Una, cancelled the Indigent Certificate, in terms of Para 28.9 of H.P. Land Records Manual, 1992, petitioner herein against said order, ought to have filed an appeal to the competent authority, instead of filing the present petition. Besides above, it has further been averred in the reply that since at the time of interview, qua the post in question, petitioner was not indigent, rather had sufficient source of income, she could not have been offered appointment against the post of part-time multitask worker.

¶40

I have heard the parties and gone through the records.

¶41

It is not in dispute that respondent No.6-Ms. Rajni Devi secured 22 marks, however, subsequently 3 marks were ordered to be deducted on account of the fact that she was not possessing valid B.C./B.P.L. Certificate. Petitioner herein came to be awarded 5 marks on account of her having produced Indigent Certificate, which subsequently came to be cancelled on the basis of complaint made by privaterespondent No.6. Though Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that Naib Tehsildar

¶42

2025:HHC:26439

¶43

-8-

¶44

proceeded to cancel the Indigent Certificate on the basis of order issued by Deputy Commissioner, that too by passing a non-speaking and cryptic order, however, having perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing the petitioner for the reason that Deputy Commissioner, after having received complaint from private-respondent No.6, wherein she raised issue with regard to validity of Indigent Certificate, referred the matter to Sub-Divisional Officer, Bangana, Una, to enquire into the issue and submit a report thereto (Annexure R-III annexed with the reply of respondents No.3 & 4). Naib Tehsildar, pursuant to direction issued by Sub-Divisional Officer, Bangana, Una, submitted his report to SubDivisional Officer, Bangana, Una, vide communication dated 15.09.2022 (Annexure P-9), perusal whereof clearly reveals that father-in-law of the petitioner has 0-42-390 hectares of land in his name and a pucca house, where he lives along with his son and his wife-petitioner jointly.

¶45

Though, Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while referring to afore report, vehemently argued that by no stretch of imagination, property, as detailed hereinabove, can be said to be sufficient to sustain family of three, however, this Court need not to go into the aforesaid aspect of the matter, since competence, if any, to issue Indigent Certificate, exclusively lies with the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bangana, Una, on the basis of certain parameters fixed in that regard. Moreover, correctness of the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer,

¶46

2025:HHC:26439

¶47

-9-

¶48

Bangana, Una, thereby cancelling the Indigent Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner cannot be gone into in the instant proceedings, rather for that purpose, petitioner ought to have filed appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law.

¶49

As per report submitted to Sub-Divisional Officer, Bangana, Una, which ultimately came to be forwarded to Deputy Commissioner, Una, though no land is recorded in the name of petitioner, but certainly, land, as detailed hereinabove, is recorded in the name of Mr. Suresh Kumar, who is father-in-law of the petitioner. Besides above, father-inlaw of the petitioner possesses a pucca (lanterposh) house, consisting of one room and one kitchen. Though, in income certificate issued in favour of Mr. Vipin Kumar, husband of the petitioner, occupation of his father i.e. Mr. Suresh Kumar was recorded as Agriculture in the Pariwar register, but at relevant time, his income was shown to the tune of Rs.34,900/-. On the basis of afore income certificate along with an affidavit sworn by petitioner, Indigent Certificate came to be issued in her favour by Naib Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil Bihru Kalan, Una on 08.12.2021 (Annexure P-8). Since aforesaid Indigent Certificate came to be issued in favour of the petitioner ignoring the guidelines contained in government letter No.Per (AP-II) F (4)-4/88-III, Deputy Commissioner, Una vide communication dated 24.01.2023 called-upon Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Bangana, Una, to adhere to provisions laid down in Para 28.19 of Chapter 28 of H.P. Land Record Manual, 1992, who subsequently vide

¶50

2025:HHC:26439

¶51

-10-

¶52

office endorsement dated 10.02.2023, forwarded the same to Naib Tehsildar, Bihru Kalan.

¶53

After receipt of report from Naib Tehsildar, letter dated 10.02.2023 from the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Bangana, was sent to the petitioner with the direction to appear before him on 22.02.2023, on which day, petitioner was granted another date, enabling her to produce some documents, however, fact remains that she failed to produce any relevant document. Ultimately, on the basis of SDO’s order, Naib Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil Vihadu Kalan, Una, cancelled the petitioner’s Indigent Certificate (Annexure P-10). Having taken note of aforesaid facts, which are admitted, it cannot be said that petitioner herein was never granted any opportunity of being heard before cancellation of Indigent Certificate.

¶54

It is apt to take note of the fact that besides filing complaint raising therein issue with regard to validity of Indigent Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, private-respondent No.6 also filed appeal before Additional Deputy Commissioner, Una, against the selection of the petitioner as Part Time Worker at Government Primary School, Kolka, District Una. Rule 19, as reproduced hereinabove, which came to be introduced in recruitment scheme dated 16.07.2020, by way of the addendum dated 25.08.2022, clearly reveals that appeal in respect of the complaints relating to Part Time Multi Task Worker selection/appointment etc., shall be made to the Additional District

¶55

2025:HHC:26439

¶56

-11-

¶57

Magistrate of the District within 15 days of selection/appointment, which in any eventuality, shall be decided by the afore authority within 30 days from the date of its receipt, with suitable direction, however, if the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome, he/she may file an appeal to the Director of Higher/Elementary Education, as the case may be, within 15 days from the decision of the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), who may dispose of the appeal within 60 days after hearing the appellant.

¶58

Additional Deputy Commissioner, Una, vide judgment dated 27.07.2023, allowed the appeal, on the ground that since Indigent Certificate stood cancelled by the competent authority, through inquiry, candidature of Ms. Sanyogita Devi (petitioner herein) is set-aside (Annexure P-11). Admittedly, on account of cancellation of Indigent Certificate, five marks awarded to the petitioner, on account of her being indigent, were required to be excluded from total 24 marks, whereafter petitioner’s total score comes to 19, which was equal to marks obtained by the private-respondent No.6. Though at this stage, Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel representing the petitioner, attempted to argue that even in the situation of tie between two candidates, petitioner ought to have been permitted to continue in service on account of her being senior to the private-respondent No.6, but this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, that once Indigent Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, she

¶59

2025:HHC:26439

¶60

-12-

¶61

was not a participant of the selection process and as such Additional District Magistrate rightly set-aside her candidature with the further direction to respondents to redraw the merit list, strictly as per the provisions/parameter contained in the Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020.

¶62

Interestingly, after passing of judgment dated 27.07.2023, whereby Additional District Magistrate proceeded to accept the appeal preferred by private-respondent No.6, petitioner herein straightaway approached this Court in the instant proceedings, whereas as per Rule 19, reproduced hereinabove, she ought to have filed appeal, if any, to Director of Higher/Elementary Education, as the case may be, within 15 days from the decision of the Additional District Magistrate, but certainly, in no circumstance, she could have straightaway come to this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶63

Though Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while justifying the petitioner’s action in approaching this Court in the instant proceedings, attempted to argue that since there was violation of principles of natural justice and Additional District Magistrate, merely on the basis of order of cancellation of Indigent Certificate issued by Naib Tehsildar, proceeded to cancel the candidature of the petitioner, petitioner is well within her rights to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, however, this Court is not persuaded to agree with aforesaid submission of Mr. Jairath, learned counsel representing the

¶64

2025:HHC:26439

¶65

-13-

¶66

petitioner, for the reason that once specific remedy has been provided in the Rules for filing appeal against the order passed by Additional District Magistrate, petitioner without availing such remedy, could not have straightaway come to this Court in the instant proceedings and as such, present petition deserves to be dismissed on this sole ground alone.

¶67

At the cost of repetition, it is noticed that private-respondent No.6 besides filing complaint to Deputy Commissioner, raising the issue with regard to validity of Indigent Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, separately filed appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, laying therein challenge to the selection of the petitioner, which ultimately came to be decided after cancellation of Indigent Certificate issued by the competent authority vide Order dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure P-10).

¶68

Though Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel representing the petitioner, attempted to argue that in the appeal filed by privaterespondent No.6, Deputy Commissioner entrusted inquiry to the SubDivisional Officer qua validity of Indigent Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and thereafter on the basis of same, candidature of the petitioner came to be rejected in the appeal filed by private-respondent No.6, however, as has been taken note hereinabove, private-respondent No.6 has simultaneously initiated two proceedings against the petitioner, by way of separate complaint, she had laid challenge to validity of Indigent Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and by way of

¶69

2025:HHC:26439

¶70

-14-

¶71

appeal, she had laid challenge to the selection of the petitioner, on many grounds inter alia ground of Indigent Certificate.

¶72

Material adduced on record nowhere suggests that Indigent Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by Deputy Commissioner, rather on his directions, Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) called upon Naib Tehsildar to conduct inquiry, who after having conducted the inquiry, found that Indigent Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner in violation of norms prescribed in that regard. Similarly, another order thereby rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of cancellation of Indigent Certificate was also passed by Additional District Magistrate and not by Deputy Commissioner, as projected by Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel representing the petitioner.

¶73

Leaving everything aside, petitioner besides having alternate remedy of filing appeal against the order passed by Additional District Magistrate, thereby cancelling her candidature, before the Director, Higher/Elementary Education, could have also filed an appeal against the order passed by Naib Tehsildar, cancelling her Indigent Certificate, before the competent authority, as provided under H.P. Land Records Manual. This Court having taken note of cancellation of Indigent Certificate by competent authority, need not go into another argument raised by the petitioner with regard to property possessed by petitioner and her family member, which as per Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel

¶74

2025:HHC:26439

¶75

-15-

¶76

representing the petitioner, is not sufficient to conclude that petitioner is not indigent, especially when such question can be decided by the competent authority in the appropriate proceedings. Taking note of pleadings as well as other material adduced on record, this Court sees no infirmity in the impugned order dated 27.07.2023 passed by Additional District Magistrate, Una, thereby cancelling the candidature of the petitioner.

¶77

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is dismissed, being devoid of any merits. Orders passed by the authorities below are upheld. Interim order dated 18.08.2023 stands hereby vacated. Needless to say, respondents shall do the needful in terms of direction issued by the competent authority vide order dated 27.07.2023, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three weeks.

¶78

The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶79

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶80

August 06, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)

Sanyogita Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanyogita Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeeva Nand @ Jiva Nand Vs State of Hp

Manju Bakshi Vs Rohan Chand Thakur and Anr.

Hem Lata Vs the State of Hp and Others

Nand Lal Vs State of Hp and Others

Balbir Singh and Another Vs Rakesh Kanwar

Leelam Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others