IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4075 of 2024 Date of Decision: 06.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Tara Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondent- State. Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate, for respondent No.9. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein is aggrieved of order dated 27.03.2024 (Annexure P-10), whereby the Additional District Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, while acting as Appellate Authority in terms of Part Time Multi Task Worker Scheme, allowed the appeal preferred by private respondent No.9, thereby challenging the appointment of the petitioner against the post of Multi Task Worker at Government Middle School, Sarkol, Education Block, Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that on 12.04.2022, one press note came to be published in the daily newspaper(Annexure P-3), thereby inviting applications for recruitment of Part Time Multi Task Worker at Government Middle School, Sarkol, Education Block, Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner herein, alongwith private respondent No.9, claiming themselves to be eligible, participated in the interview held for the post in question on 30.05.2022. Petitioner herein was declared selected and as such, joined against the post in question on 06.06.2022 (Annexure P-6) at the school concerned. 3. Private respondent No.9, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the selection of the petitioner, filed an appeal under Rule 19 of Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, amended vide Notification dated 25.08.2022, before the Additional District Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh i.e. Appellate Authority in the Part Time Multi Task Worker Scheme. 4. During the proceedings of the appeal, it came to be transpired that private respondent, besides filing appeal, as detailed hereinabove, had also filed a representation before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Block Development Officer, Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, seeking cancellation of BPL certificate 3 issued on 18.04.2022 in favour of the petitioner. The Additional District Magistrate i.e. Appellate Authority, while keeping the appeal pending, directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karsog, to decide the representation filed by the private respondent. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karsog, after conducting inquiry into the matter, finally, vide communication dated 07.06.2023, recommended that in accordance with Notification No. SMJ-120/2012-13(BD) RDD229-519 dated 13.07.2018, Sh. Tara Chand i.e. petitioner herein, was not eligible for selection under the BPL Category. Since aforesaid order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karsog was not challenged by the affected party, i.e. petitioner herein, the Appellate Authority i.e. Additional District Magistrate, having carefully perused the report submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karsog, allowed the appeal filed by the private respondent, as a result thereof, appointment of the petitioner against the post in question came to be quashed. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs:- “(i) To review the result sheet i.e. Annexure P-5 by awarding three marks to the petitioner for non- employment certificate; (ii) To quash and set aside impugned order of termination dated 18.04.2024 (Annexure P-7); (iii) To quash and set aside impugned order dated 27.03.2024 (Annexure P-10); 4 (iv) To quash and set aside inquiry report dated 07.06.2023 (Annexure P-12). (v) To quash and set aside impugned order dated 04.05.2024 (Annexure P-14). (vi) To direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Part time Multi Task Worker with all consequential benefits.” 5. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that Appellate Authority, while passing impugned order dated 27.03.2024 (Annexure P-10), failed to take note of the fact that petitioner herein was wrongly not granted three marks for having proved that there is no one employed in his family. Learned counsel representing the petitioner, while fairly admitting that since petitioner herein failed to lay challenge to the order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karsog, thereby cancelling his BPL Certificate, petitioner herein stands estopped from raising aforesaid ground before this Court, but he vehemently argued that once it stood proved on record that there is no one in government employment from the family of the petitioner, the Selection Committee ought to have awarded three marks to him. He submitted that had the Selection Committee granted three marks to the petitioner under the aforesaid category of being unemployed from the family, petitioner would have secured first position in the merit list. 5 6. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, and Mr. Munish Datwalia, learned counsel representing private respondent No.9, vehemently argued that petitioner herein concealed factum with regard to employment of his wife as a Mid Day Meal Worker. They submitted that as per the scheme, a candidate claiming marks under the aforesaid category should not have member of family in service, whether in government or private employment. 7. To the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making this Court peruse judgment dated 22.11.2018 passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.98 of 2015, titled Gaurav Thakur vs. Prem Singh and others, contended that Mid Day Meal Worker under the scheme is not a government servant. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that, at first instance, petitioner was appointed against the post in question on account of his having been awarded three marks under BPL category. It is not in dispute that BPL certificate produced at the time of selection against the post in question stands cancelled vide order dated 07.06.2023 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karsog. Since at no point of time aforesaid order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karsog was ever laid challenge before the Appellate Authority, no illegality can be 6 said to have been committed by the Appellate Authority in allowing the appeal filed under Rule 19 of the Scheme by the private respondent. 9. If the order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karsog dated 07.06.2023, is perused in its entirety, it clearly suggests that at the time of production of BPL Certificate, petitioner’s family was not a BPL family, rather their annual income was substantially higher. Besides owning a pucca house, petitioner’s family also possessed 15 bighas of land, as is evident from the report submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karsog. Be that as it may, once order cancelling BPL Certificate was never challenged before the competent authority, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Appellate Authority in quashing the appointment of the petitioner against the post in question on the ground that he was wrongly awarded three marks on account of his being from BPL family. Admittedly, if three marks granted to the petitioner at the time of selection are excluded, he would not figure at Sr. No.1 of merit list. 10. Another issue raised by the petitioner with regard to non- grant of marks under unemployed category, also warrants outright rejection. 11. Admittedly, in the case at hand, at the time of selection of the petitioner against the post in question, wife of the petitioner was working as Mid Day Meal Worker in a government school. True it is 7 that Division Bench of this Court in Gaurav Thakur’s case (supra) held that a Mid Day Meal Worker appointed under the scheme cannot be said to be in service of government, but bare perusal of the scheme (Annexure P-1) clearly reveals that a candidate desirous of claiming marks under the unemployed family category must prove that no member of his family is employed. 12. At this stage, it would be pertinent to take note of condition No.6 of Clause 7 of the scheme, which reads as under:- “Candidates belonging to unemployed families =03 marks. 13. Sub clause 6 of Clause 7 clearly provides that a candidate belonging to an unemployed family shall be awarded three marks. Aforesaid provision contained in the scheme does not make any reference to government service, it talks about candidate belonging to unemployed family, meaning thereby, if any, member of the candidate concerned is employed, be it in government or in private service shall not get three marks, rather only such candidates from whose family no member is in service, be it government or in private service shall get three marks. Once it stands duly proved on record that at the time of selection of the petitioner against the post in question, wife of the petitioner was employed as Mid Day Meal Worker in Government School, no illegality can be said to have been 8 committed by the respondents in not granting three marks as claimed by the petitioner. 14. Division Bench of this Court in case titled Surjit Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWP No. 5994 of 2012, decided on 19.10.2012, had an occasion to deal with the similar issue, wherein Division Bench of this Court held as under:- “4. It is for the Selection Committee to decide whether the marks for being unemployed should be given to a candidate or not but prima facie we are of the opinion that the purpose of the scheme is to help those who have no job and not to help those who want to shift from one job to another. We are clearly of the view that when a person holds the post of Mid Day Meal Worker and gets a honorarium of Rs.1000/- per month that person cannot be considered to be unemployed person and would not be entitled to any marks on this account”. 15. In afore case, the Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that a person holds the post of Mid Day Meal Worker and gets a honorarium of Rs.1000/- per month that person cannot be considered to be unemployed person and would not be entitled to any marks on this account. 16. Judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Gaurav Thakur’s case (supra) is in different context. In that case before Division Bench of this Court under Clause 7(3) and 4 of the scheme there was provision of awarding 5 marks to a candidate 9 belonging to a family of which no one is in government service. Since in afore Clause specific mention was with regard to government service and wife of the candidate concerned in that case was working as Mid Day Meal worker under government sponsored scheme, Division Bench of this Court, while holding that person holding the post of Mid Day Meal Worker cannot be said to be in government service, held petitioner in that case entitled for 5 marks. However, in the case at hand as has been discussed hereinabove condition is “unemployed family” and there is no specific mention, if any, of the government employment. Since wife of the petitioner stood engaged as Mid Day Meal Worker at the time of selection of the petitioner, there was no occasion for the Selection Committee to grant him three marks for no one employed in family. 17. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly same is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 06, 2025 (shankar)