JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

Notice confined to respondents No.1 to 5 and 7. No notice is being issued to respondents No.6, 8 and 9.

2. Heard.

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that in a process initiated by the Authorities to fill up the post of Part Time Multi Task Workers at Government Primary School Rajaina, District Sirmour, H.P., the private respondent was selected vide Annexure P-5 dated 18.08.2023. In this process, the petitioner also participated. Feeling aggrieved by the appointment of the private respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 19 of the Part Time Multi Task Workers Scheme , 2020. The main ground agitated in the appeal, as is evident from the order passed by the Authority on the said appeal dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure A-4) was that the private respondent had once failed in 8th class in Government Senior Secondary School, Koti Dhiman in the month of March, 2008 and, thereafter, he arranged to qualify 8th class examination illegally from Himalayan Public Senior Secondary School, Chowri, District Chamba, H.P., during the session 2011-12 by taking admission in the said School. This according to the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the Right to Education Act, 2009.

4. Said appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Authority by returning the following reason:-

“The appellant and all the respondents were summoned. The respondents filed their respective replies to the memo of appeal. The respondent No.5 averred in his reply that the alleged certificate, annexed with (Annexure P-6) is genuine and has been issued in favour of the respondent No.6 after qualifying 8th class. It is, further averred that there is no any bar in law to obtain education or to continue the education and the Right to Education Act does not prohibit the respondent to continue his education. The appellant filed rejoinders to the replies filed by the respondents. Lastly arguments were heard.

The contents of memo of appeal, replies, rejoinders and the records, stand found placed on the record of this case file was perused and the arguments lead by the learned counsel for the parties were given due consideration. Nothing material has been found in the grounds of appeal, rather the statement, made by respondent No.5 in his reply is quite appealing and genuine. In view of the above findings, the present appeal is dismissed. The case file be consigned to the General Record Room after due completion.”

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a further appeal under Rule 19 of the policy before the Director of School Education. Said appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Director School Education vide Annexure P-1, dated 18.07.2025 by returning the following findings:-

“The main contention of the appellant in the present appeal is that Respondent No. 7 has obtained Middle standard certificate from Respondent No. 6 during the session 2011-12 in illegal manner. The appellant contends that the provisions of the RTE Act make it very clear that a child means a male or female of the age of six to fourteen years and the elementary education means the education from 1" Class to 8th Class, and Respondent No.7 was not a child after failing 8 class examination in GSSS Koti Dhiman because he had attained age of 14 years one month and 19 days on 31.03.2008. The counsel for the appellant further contends that had the Respondent. No. 7 been covered under the definition of "child" then as per section 5 of RTE Act, Respon