Allowed

Kiran Kumari v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2026CWP/2783/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the dismissal of her appeal against the selection of Respondent No. 5 as Multi Task Worker, which was rejected as time-barred under a notification issued after the selection concluded. The High Court quashed the appellate authority's order and directed it to decide the appeal on merits, holding that the appeal provision did not exist at the time of selection and its applicability was unclear.

What did the court decide?

Impugned decision dated 10.04.2023 quashed; appellate authority directed to decide appeal on merits by 30.09.2026.

Kiran Kumari 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. 2783/2023 Decided on: 18.09.2026

¶3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kiran Kumari …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. and Ors.

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent sNo.1 to 4.

¶10

Ms. Tanu & Ms. Muskan, Advocates, for respondents No.5 & 6.

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶12

Petitioner participated in the selection process for the

¶13

post of Multi Task Worker at Government Primary School, Pahloo, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur. The result of the selection process was declared on 27.06.2022. Respondent No. 5 was selected, appointed and she thereafter joined as Multi Task Worker. The petitioner appealed against the selection of respondent No. 5 before the appellate authority-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur. The appeal was preferred on 29.03.2023 and the same was dismissed on 10.04.2023, holding it

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

to be barred by the period prescribed in the notification dated 25.08.2022. Under the said notification, the appeal could have been preferred only within 15 days of the selection and appointment. The appeal by the present appellant was preferred after 9 months of the selection and appointment of respondent No.5.

¶17

Heard & considered the case file.

¶18

At the time of selection and appointment of respondent No. 5, there was no provision for preferring an appeal against the selection/appointment of Multi Task Worker in the applicable Policy. The said provision was incorporated in the policy by the respondents vide notification dated 25.08.2022, inserting following Rule 19: -

¶19

“ADDENDUM

¶20

In partial modification of this Department's Notification No. EDN-C-B(1)2/2019 dated 16 July, 2020 (as updated upto 11th Himachal Pradesh is pleased March, 2022), the Governor, pleased to add "Rule-19 Appellate Authority" in the Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy, 2020 as under:

¶21

19. Appellate Authority:

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

may dispose off the appeal within 60 days after hearing the appellant.....”

¶25

Clause 19, inserted in the Multi Task Worker Policy

¶26

vide notification dated 25.08.2022, provided a right of appeal in respect of complaints relating to the selection/appointment of PTMTW to the Additional District Magistrate of the concerned district, and further appeal to the Director Higher Elementary Education, as the case may be, against the decision of the Additional District Magistrate. In the instant case, the selection process had concluded on 27.06.2022, whereas the notification inserting Clause 19, providing a right of appeal, was issued much later, on 25.08.2022. Respondents have not filed their reply to the writ petition despite grant of opportunities. From the pleadings, it is not discernible as to whether the notification dated 25.08.2022 was even given wide publicity, was published in accordance with law, or was brought to the notice of the public or not.

¶27

Keeping above in view, and in the interest of justice also having regard to the grounds raised by the petitioner in this petition for targeting the income certificate issued to respondent No.5, on the basis of which she had been selected and appointed, it is deemed appropriate to direct the appellate authority, i.e. the Additional District Magistrate, Hamirpur, to consider and decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner on its own merits. Ordered

¶28

¶29

accordingly. The impugned decision dated 10.04.2023 (Annexure P-2) is also quashed and set aside.

¶30

Parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the concerned authority on 30.09.2026 , who shall thereafter consider and decide the appeal in accordance with law, keeping in view the relevant clauses of the applicable policy.

¶31

It is clarified that in passing this order, merits of matter have not been examined. All rights & contentions of the parties in that regard are left open. The instant petition to stand disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s),

¶32

if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶33

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶34

18^th September, 2026 rohit

Kiran Kumari v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Kumari v. State of Hp and Others

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