IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19542 of 2025 Decided on: 16.12.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Raveena Thakur …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Shashwat and Mr. Dixit Sahotra, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner’s selection and appointment as Part Time Multi-Task Worker (PTMTW) at Government Primary School Baragaon, Education Block Saigaloo, District Mandi, H.P. was questioned by respondent No.9 by preferring appeal under Section 19 of the Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy as amended on 25.08.2022. The appeal was allowed by the First Appellate Authority on 26.03.2025. Petitioner’s selection as PTMTW was set aside. Respondent 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 No.9 was selected in her place with further direction to the concerned authority to issue consequential appointment order to respondent No.9. This order was further affirmed by the Second Appellate Authority on 17.07.2025. Petitioner feels aggrieved against the concurrent orders passed against her selection. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3(i). Interview was conducted by the Selection Committee on 25.05.2022 for the post of PTMTW at the aforesaid school. Seventeen candidates participated in the selection process. Out of these, four candidates, including the petitioner and respondent No.9, scored identical i.e. 28 marks. 3(ii) At the time of interview on 25.05.2022, document verification was also carried out by the Selection Committee. On 25.05.2022, petitioner was issued an income certificate of Rs. 35,000/-, which was produced by her before the Selection Committee. Other candidates had also produced the income certificates at the time of interview, which were considered by the Selection Committee. Respondent No.9 had produced income certificate, reflecting income of Rs.35,000/-. One Anita Devi 3 and Sh. Rahul, who had also scored 28 marks each in the Selection Process, produced income certificates of Rs.38,000/- and Rs.35000/- respectively. Sh. Rahul was younger in age to respondent No.9. 3(iii) The Block Elementary Education Officer Saigaloo, Tehsil Kotli, District Mandi-respondent No.6 was the Member Secretary of the Selection Committee. She was also the real Aunt of the present petitioner. This fact has neither been disputed before the two authorities below nor before this Court. On 25.05.2022, despite the tied up four candidates, including the petitioner and respondent No.9, having placed on record all requisite documents, including their valid income certificates, the Selection Committee extended the time by fifteen days to enable these candidates to produce fresh income certificates. Such procedure was not in consonance with the PTMTW Policy and has rightly been held to be an illegal exercise by the two authorities below. There was no occasion for the Selection Committee to have called for fresh income certificates from the four tied up candidates when they had already placed on record their valid income certificates and the PTMTW Policy as amended on 25.08.2022 prescribed 4 the methodology to select in the event of candidates scoring equal marks, wherein income as reflected in the income certificate became a relevant factor. Further, pursuant to the direction of the Selection Committee, it was only the petitioner, who produced fresh income certificate on 08.06.2022, where her income was reflected as not exceeding Rs. 30,000/- p.a. It was on the basis of her having lesser income in terms of her fresh income certificate, the selection committee selected and appointed the petitioner. 4. Both the authorities have justly held that physical verification of the documents had already been conducted by the Selection Committee on 25.05.2022; On that day, the petitioner possessed a valid income certificate, indicating annual income of Rs.35,000/-. Despite this, the Selection Committee granted further time for submission of fresh income certificates. Such procedure was alien to the PTMTW Policy as amended on 25.08.2022, whereunder, in case of tie, preference was to be given to the candidate having lower income. It is only the petitioner who took advantage of this extension of time granted by the Selection Committee and produced a fresh income certificate, whereunder, her income was now depicted as Rs.30,000/- 5 as against the previous income certificate issued to her about two weeks ago, reflecting her income to be Rs.35,000/-. Based upon her having lesser income in terms of the second income certificate out of the four candidates with equal marks, petitioner was selected as PTMTW. It cannot be ignored that extension of time by the Selection Committee to produce fresh income certificates when valid income certificates of all four candidates were already available, was alien to the Policy. Additionally, this direction was given by the Selection Committee which included Block Elementary Education Officer as its Member Secretary, who was real Aunt of the petitioner. Petitioner’s selection was not only contrary to the policy, but even otherwise lacked fairness and transparency. Both the Authorities below did not err in law in setting aside the selection and appointment of the petitioner as Part Time Multi-Task Worker and ordering to appoint respondent No.9 being next candidate as per income certificate, age and marks. Hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the two concurrent orders passed against the petitioner by the Authorities below. 5. Consequently, there is no merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. 6 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 16, 2025 Judge R.Atal