Point of Law: “Family” means a joint family of all persons descended from common ancestor including adoption, who live, worship and mess together permanently as shown in the parivar register of the Gram Panchayat.

ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the grant of following reliefs:

(i) To award marks of land donation to the petitioner strictly as per Clause 7 of the Annexure P-1 as the Annexure P-7 has been issued seventeen days after the last of submission of the application form that too without any prior information.

(ii) To quash and set-aside Annexure P-7, as it has been issued seventeen days after the last of submission of the application form with required documents whereas Annexure P-7 provides for more documents which can be submitted only if the date of submission of the application form is extended as averred by the petitioner regarding submission of certificate of a person living in extreme indigent conditions.

(iii) To award three marks to the petitioner being member of BPL family separately in addition to three marks being member of OBC category.

3. The case of petitioner is that the Government of Himachal Pradesh has framed and notified a policy “Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020 (for short “Policy”) for the appointment of Part Time Multi Task Workers in the Government schools of Himachal Pradesh under Higher & Elementary Education Department. As per Clause 7 (iv) of the Policy, 8 marks are allocated for candidates whose families have donated land for school.

4. The petitioner applied for the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker lying vacant in Government Primary School, Kotla Bangi, Education Block, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that her grand father-in-law had donated land for Government Primary School, Kotla Bangi and she is a member of his family. She has been denied 8 marks under Clause 7 (iv) of the Policy and the action of respondents in that regard is arbitrary and illegal.

6. Sh. Chander Shekhar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the clarification issued by respondent No. 2 on 24.05.2022 restricting the scope of members of family to “Land Donor or His/Her Spouse and their Children” under Clause 7 (iv) of the Policy, is bad in law. The action of respondents has been assailed to be bad in law as the meaning assigned to term members of the “family” in the Policy is in total contradiction with the definition of “family” provided under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act.

7. The nature of employment contemplated under the Policy is part time, that too, on contractual basis under the School Management Committees. The Part Time Multi Task Worker is entitled to consolidated honorarium of Rs. 5,625/- per month for ten months in an academic year. It has specifically been provided in Clause 16 of the Policy that the persons appointed as Part Time Multi Task Worker under the Scheme, will have no right/claim for regularization/ absorption/appointment as regular Class-IV employees of the State Government. In these circumstances, the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker cannot be said to be a civil post. The Policy cannot be said to have any semblance of rules that can be framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Policy is an administrative measure of temporary nature. Therefore, the clarification dated 24.05.2022 issued by respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be bad in law especially when the State Government has acted upon it.

8. Clause 7 (iv) of the Policy only provided for grant of 8 marks to those candidates whose families have donated land for school. The term “families” as noticed above, had been used in general term. No details were provided as to who would be included in term “families”. In view of this, the clarification dated 24.05.2022, is only clarificatory in nature.

9. The Policy to appoint the Part Time Multi Task Worker has no relation to the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act. The Policy has not been framed keeping in view the aims and objectives of the said Act. Thus, the contention raised on behalf of petitioner that clarification dated 24.5.2022 violates against