Dismissed

Babli Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Apr 2026CWP/2337/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged quashing of her selection as part-time water carrier, contending a road-distance certificate showed entitlement to more marks and that she deserved compassionate appointment. Court held disputed facts not cognizable in writ jurisdiction, official BDO report presumed true, Clause 12 inapplicable since selection was by process; petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Babli Devi Vs State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.2337 of 2018 Date of Decision: 10^th April, 2026.

¶3

Babli Devi .....Petitioner Versus State of HP and Others ….Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Swati Draik, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 6. Mr. Shubhash Chander, Advocate vice Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate, for respondents No.7 and 9.

¶8

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)

¶9

The present petition has been filed seeking the following

¶10

reliefs:-

¶11

a. To issue the writ in nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.09.2018 (Annexure P-11) passed by the learned Dy. Commissioner Kangra at Dharamshala.

¶12

b. To issue the writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as water carrier in Govt. Primary School, Bara Block, Nurpur, District Kangra, HP.

¶13

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present case at hand are

¶14

that the Head Teacher of Government Primary School, Bara Block, Nurpur, District Kangra, HP had called for a walk in interview for the post of Part Time Water Carrier, to be held on

¶15

¶16

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶17

¶18

23.12.2011. Four candidates had appeared on the date of interview. The Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Jawali, District Kangra, HP selected the petitioner as a Part Time Water Carrier in Government Primary School Bara Block, Nurpur, District Kangra, HP.

¶19

3. The appointment so made, was challenged by present respondent Nos.8 and 9. The sole grievance was primarily qua marks awarded on the basis of distance criteria to the present petitioner. The present petitioner had been awarded 10 marks on the basis of the distance criteria, whereas it was contended that in terms of the policy, the petitioner was only entitled for six marks. The relevant extract of the scheme of appointment of Part Time Water Carriers in the Schools of Education Department (Elementary and Higher Education) has been placed on record as Annexure P-8. Interview and allocation of marks thereof is dealt with in Clause 7. The relevant extract of the scheme, insofar it pertains to allocation of marks on the basis of the distance is being reproduced hereinbelow for ready

¶20

reference:-

¶21

1	For candidates of village/town at distance
a)	Up to 1.5 Kms from school	10 Marks
b)	Up to 2 Kms from school	08 marks
c)	Up to 3 Kms from school	06 marks
d)	Up to 4 kms from school	04 Marks
e)	Up to 5 Kms from school	02 marks

¶22

¶23

4. Insofar as the representations of respondents No.8 and 9 were concerned, the same were disposed of vide order dated 09.12.2013, by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, HP. While disposing of the representations, the Deputy Commissioner Kangra, HP, directed the Chairman of the Selection Committeecum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Jawali to ascertain by way of an inquiry the factum of the exact distance between the house of the petitioner and the school. In the meanwhile, present petitioner had preferred a CWP No.687 of 16 before this High Court. On 18.11.2016, the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order, directing the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Jawali to conduct inquiry, in terms of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala on 09.12.2013 uninfluenced by any of the documents, which had been placed on record by the parties in CWP No.687 of 2016.

¶24

5. Initially a report was submitted by the Naib Tehsildar

¶25

Kotla on 29.11.2016 qua the exact distance between the Government Primary School Bara and the house of the present petitioner. In the report so submitted, it was clearly mentioned that the Government School is approximately three kilometers from the house of the petitioner in which 2.5 kms is the road distance and 500 meters is the path distance. The report so obtained from the Naib Tehsildar Kotla was objected to by the present petitioner. The petitioner prayed that a report in this

¶26

¶27

respect should be called from the office of the Block Development Officer.

¶28

6. In pursuance to the request of the petitioner, report was called from the office of the BDO. As per the report of the BDO, the distance of the house of the petitioner from Government Primary School Bara was reported as 3.25 kilometers. In view thereof, in terms of the parameters laid down in the scheme for appointment of Part Time Water Carrier (Annexure P-8) the petitioner was only entitled for six marks. The report so submitted by the Sub Divisional (Civil) Jawali, was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner. Based on the aforesaid, marks initially allotted at the interview on 23.12.2011 were redrawn. The redrawn merit list is at page 33/34 of the paper book and forms a part of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 11.09.2018 (Annexure P-11). In view thereof the interim selection process was quashed. Fresh interviews were ordered to be conducted.

¶29

7. In the aforesaid backdrop, two contentions have been raised by the petitioner. The first contention is based on a distance certificate placed on record at Annexure P-12 (Page 37-A). A perusal of the same reflects that the petitioner is a resident of Village Niyangal. In the said certificate distance from Village Niyangal to Govt. Primary School by road has been detailed. As per the said certificate, the distance is 2.550 KMs. As has already been stated supra, in pursuance to the order

¶30

dated 09.12.2013, passed by the Deputy Commissioner,

¶31

¶32

Kangra, HP and order dated 18.11.2016, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.687/16 on a petition filed by the petitioner, SDO (Civil) Jawali had been directed to conduct an inquiry, wherein the exact distance between the house of the petitioner and the school was to be ascertained. In pursuance thereof, initially a report in this regard was obtained from the Naib Tehsildar Kotla. As per the report of the Naib Tehsildar Kotla, the exact distance between the house of the petitioner and the Govt. Primary School Bara is approximately 3 KMs, out of which 2.5 KMs is road distance and 500m the path distance. The said report was objected too by the petitioner and as has been stated supra a fresh report in this respect was called for from the BDO concerned. As per the report of the BDO, the exact distance of the house of the petitioner to the Govt. Primary School Bara was approximately 3.250 kilometers. The report whereupon reliance is now sought to be made i.e. Annexure P-12 makes it amply clear that the distance between the concerned Primary Govt. School Bara by road from Village of which the petitioner is a resident is 2.550 KMs. Report is in sync with the previous reports submitted by the Naib Tehsildar Kotla and report submitted by the BDO concerned. The report whereupon reliance is now being placed mentions the road distance from the Govt. Primary School Bara and does not further mention the distance between the road till the house of the petitioner.

¶33

¶34

8. Further suffice it to state that disputed questions of fact are not to be gone into a writ proceeding. The report submitted by the BDO concerned is an official document, which carries with such a presumption of truth in terms of Section 114(e) of the erstwhile Evidence Act.

¶35

9. Other than the aforesaid, a contention is sought to be raised that the petitioner being a widow is entitled to compassionate appointment in terms of Clause 12 of the Scheme (Annexure P-8). The ground so raised is without merit as from a perusal of Clause 12 of the Scheme, it is evident that the Government has the power to appoint any candidate, as a Part Time Water Carrier on compassionate ground without following the selection process. In the case at hand the selection was made on the basis of a selection process, hence, appointment was not sought to be made by the authority on the basis of compassionate grounds.

¶36

10. No other contention has been urged.

¶37

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Fresh interviews for the post be conducted as early as possible.

¶38

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶39

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶40

10^th April, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)

Babli Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Babli Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Company Vs Vijay Kumar and Anr.

Kamal Singh Vs Union of India and Others

Ankush Kumar @ Gharati Vs State of Hp

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pushap Lata and Others

Shareshtha Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma