AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ
This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner, assailing order dated 11.04.2023 of the Director of Elementary Education-cum-2nd Appellate Authority, Shimla, H.P. confirming order dated 02.03.2023, passed by the First Appellate Authority-cum- Additional District Magistrate, Solan, District Solan, H.P. on 31.01.2023.
The 8th respondent had initiated proceedings before the First Appellate Authority, challenging the appointment of the petitioner herein as Part Time Multi Task Worker.
The 8th respondent contended that she was a widow and she was entitled for 8 marks as per Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020; that she was otherwise qualified to get appointed to the said post; but 8 marks due to her, on account of her being a widow, were denied and the petitioner was appointed to the said post. She also contended that she submitted the death certificate of her husband alongwith copy of the Parivar Register well in time before the Selection Committee, but on the ground that she did not produce the certificate issued by the Competent Authority that she is a widow, she was denied the said marks and the petitioner was appointed in her place.
The First Appellate Authority, after issuing notice to the petitioner, and after considering the contentions of both the parties and after perusing the entire record, held that though the policy in question mentioned that a valid certificate that the 8th respondent is a widow would be the one issued by the Block Development Officer concerned, there is judgment of this Court rendered on 05.08.2022, in CWP No.3837 of 2022, titled as Shanti Devi Versus State and others; that the 8th respondent had produced a valid widow certificate issued by the Competent authority, though subsequently; the fact that the death certificate of her husband was also enclosed and was before the Selection Committee was sufficient evidence to presume that she was a widow; she ought to have been given 8 marks more than the petitioner, and in this event she would have got 27 marks instead of the petitioner who had got 22 marks. He, therefore, set aside the appointment of the petitioner, directing the competent authority to redraw the result.
Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd Appellate Authority, who confirmed the findings of the 1st Appellate Authority.
He held that the 8th respondent had submitted the death certificate of her husband well in time before the Selection Committee, which was sufficient to indicate that she was a widow, that the Selection Committee should have accorded an opportunity to her to file a certificate duly issued by the competent authority at a later point of time, that such a certificate was in fact produced by her at a later point of time before the 1st Appellate Authority, and therefore, she ought to have been appointed instead of the petitioner.
Assailing the same, this writ petition is filed.
Though, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the 8th respondent should have produced a certificate to the Competent Authority that she is a widow, and because she had failed to produce the same at the cut off date, she ought not have been granted any relief of the 1st Appellate Authority and the 2nd Appellate Authority, we are unable to accede to the said contention.
In Dolly Chhanda vs Chairman, Jee & Others, (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 779, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in regard to holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed, there cannot be any relaxation; but in regard to availing the benefit of reservation, weightage etc. where necessary certificates have to be produced, since these documents are in nature of proof of eligibility to get the said benefit of reservation, these documents can be produced at a later point of time and the rigid principle of production of all the certificates by the date fixed, cannot be applied. This view has been reiterated in other judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well including in Charles K. Skaria & Ors. Versus Dr. C. Mathew & Ors., 1980 (2) SCC 752.
Having regard to the above principles laid down in the judgments cited above, we find that the concurrent findings of the 1st Appellate Authority as well as 2nd Appellate Authority, do not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.