IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13401 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.8.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Tej Pal ……...Petitioner Versus Additional District Magistrate & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Varun Thakur, Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Rajender Gulati, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) In the month of April 2022, an advertisement came to be issued for the recruitment to the post of Multi Task Worker at Government Primary School Mehandon Bag, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, petitioner alongwith private respondent No.6 also applied for the post in question. Since private respondent No.6 was found more meritorious, she was offered appointment against the post in question. 2. Being aggrieved with selection of private respondent named herein above, petitioner herein filed appeal in the court of Additional District Magistrate District Sirmaur, Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.1.2025. 2 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with afore order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 19 of the Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy before Director of Elementary Education cum Second Appellate Authority, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 9.4.2025 (Annexure P-8). In the afore background, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid orders as well as order dated 27.7.2022 (Annexure P-4), where income certificate showing therein income of the petitioner to be 35,000/- came to be cancelled. 4. In nutshell, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Varun Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the authorities below while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner failed to take note of the fact that at the time of interview, income certificate issued in favour of the petitioner thereby showing his income to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- was very much in existence and as such, petitioner herein could not have been denied selection against the post in question on the ground that his income certificate was subsequently cancelled by the competent authority. 5. Mr. Varun Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, further argued that result was prepared on 25.8.2022, whereas order revising the petitioner’s income was issued on 26.8.2022, which fact 3 has been duly admitted by the Additional District Magistrate Sirmaur while passing order dated 28.1.2025. However, careful perusal of order laid challenge in the instant proceedings clearly reveals that date “25.8.2022” was inadvertently mentioned below the signature of authority responsible for preparing the result. Additional District Magistrate while ascertaining correctness of afore grouse of the petitioner specifically called upon Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Dhiman, the then Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Pachhad at Sarahan and Sh. Rajesh Kumar, the then Block Elementary Education Officer, Sarahan, with relevant record pertaining the alleged interview. Both the persons appeared before the Additional District Magistrate on 21.1.2025 and got their statements recorded stating therein that date “25.8.2022” mentioned below the signature of SDM was recorded inadvertently because result was actually prepared on 26.8.2022 after receipt of revised income certificate in favour of the petitioner thereby showing his income to the tune of Rs 48,000/-. 6. It is quite apparent from the perusal of order dated 27.7.2022, passed by the Collector cum Appellate Officer Sub Division Pachhad, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh that pursuant to complaint received from private respondent, he got the matter inquired from the competent authority and found that petitioner Tej Pal procured the income certificate, thereby showing his income to be Rs. 4 35000/-, by submitting false affidavit, whereas his actual income comes out to be Rs.48,000/- 7. Since income certificate, which was annexed with the documents submitted by the petitioner while making application for appointment against the post in question was not found to be genuine, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the authorities below while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner, laying therein challenge to selection of the private respondent against the post in question. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, this court finds no force in the present petition and as such, same is dismissed being devoid of any merit. August 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Manjit Judge