Jabna Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Satyen Vaidya, J

Petitioner has approached this Court for following substantive reliefs:

"1. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-9 i.e. impugned selection list of PTMTW Education Block Seraj-II at Balichowki issued by the respondent No.4 qua the respondent No.7.

Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities not to appoint the respondent No.7 for the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker at GMS Chalwatan, Education Block Seraj-II at Balichowki, which has been done without adopting selection process under Clause 7 of the notification dated 11th March 2022 i.e. Annexure P-7.

Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner fo the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker at GMS Chalwatan, Education Block Seraj-II at Balichowki as per Clause 7 of notification dated 11.03.2022."

The precise case of the petitioner is that the selection of respondent No.7 as Part Time Multi Task Worker at GMS Chalwatan, Education Block Seraj­II at Balichowki, District Mandi, H.P. is bad in law, as the petitioner being one of the candidates has been ignored despite being entitled for higher marks than respondent No.7. The premise on which petitioner has staked claim for higher marks is that her father­in­law had donated land for the school and therefore as per eligibility criteria, petitioner is entitled for eight marks on this count.

Sh. Narender Singh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record a communication dated 24.05.2022, whereby respondent No.2 has intimated all the Deputy Directors Elementary Education in the State of Himachal Pradesh regarding clarifications in respect of the Policy for engagement of Part Time Multi Task Worker in Government Schools in Himachal Pradesh. One of the clarification so intimated at serial No.4(i) is that the term "Family" as described in Clause 7(iv) of the Policy will include only land donor or his/her spouse or their children.

Learned Deputy Advocate General has further submitted that the above­noted clarification issued by the State Government has been upheld in CWP No. 3522 of 2022, decided by Division Bench of this Court on 03.06.2022.

Perusal of communication dated 24.05.2022, issued by respondent No.2 reveals that the term "Family" as contained in Clause 7(iv) of the Policy issued by Government of Himachal Pradesh for recruitment to the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker has been clarified to include only the land donor or his/her spouse or their children. The clarification so issued by respondent No.2, has been upheld by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 03.06.2022 in CWP No. 3522 of 2022.

Petitioner being daughter­in­law of land donor does not fall within the term family as per clause 7(iv) of the Policy. Thus, the instant petition filed by the petitioner is without any justifiable cause of action and hence deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.