Daughter-in-law not eligible for marks under donation policy as she is excluded from the definition of family.

Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Precisely, the question, which needs to be determined in gthe case at hand is that “whether the daughter-in-law is entitled to eight imarks, in lieu of land donated by her in-laws for construction of school in terms of Part Time Multiple Task Worker Policy notified by Government of Himachal Pradesh, vide notification dated 16.07.2020 (Annexure P-1)?”

2. In nutshell, grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Nishant Khidtta, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that petitioner herein was wrongly denied eight marks in lieu of land donated by her in-laws for construction of

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

school. Though petitioner herein applied for the post of Part Time Multiple Task Worker in terms of advertisement, but she failed to secure place in the merit list, as a result thereof, she was not offered appointment against the post in question. Had selection committee granted eight marks to the petitioner in lieu of land donated by her in- laws for school, she would have got an opportunity to work as Part Time Multiple Task Worker.

3. Parties are ad idem that issue raised in the instant proceedings is no longer res integra, rather stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3728 of 2022 , titled as Smt. Bhawani Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., wherein Notification dated 24.05.2022 defining the term “family” came to be upheld. In afore judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court upheld notification dated 24.05.2022, wherein term “family” came to be clarified that the term ‘family’ will be “land owner or his/her spouse or children. Since in afore definition of family, daughter-in-law never came to be included, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while not granting eight marks to the petitioner in lieu of land donated by her in-laws for construction of school. Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:-

“Petitioner has filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , challenging the notification dated 24th May, 2022 defining the word ‘family’ and it has been prayed that the petitioner may be granted eight marks as per Clause 7 of the Part Time Multi Task Workers Policy, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the policy) under the head “For candidates whose families have donated land for school”. .

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that father-in- law of the petitioner had registered a Gift Deed donating land to the Government Primary School Kotla, District Mandi. Hence, the petitioner falls within the category of candidates, whose family had donated land for school and was entitled for grant of eight marks under Clause 7 of the Policy. The clarification issued by the respondents by restricting the meaning of term ‘family’ to be land donor or his/her spouse and their children was liable to be set-aside. The objective of the policy was to provide employment to the eligible candidates in schools.

3. Notification has been issued with regard to the “Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020”. The said notification has been placed on record as Annexure P-1/P-2. The objective of the scheme is as under:-

(a) To provide Part Time Multi Task Worker in all the Schools in Himachal Pradesh through creation of new posts.

(b) To encourage decentralization of powers by empowering the SMCs in the effective running of Govt.

Schools.

(c) To provide an opportunity for the eligible g unemployed candidates to earn honorarium at Local level.

4. As per clause 7 of the policy, selection criteria/marks liable to be awarded to the candidates have been enumerated. So far as candidates whose families have donated land for schools are to be awarded eight marks.

5. Some clarifications were sought on different issues by various quarters with regard to the allocation of marks and validity