Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sanju vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 April, 2021

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

(1 of 5) [CW-718/2020]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 718/2020

Sanju D/o Santosh Kumar W/o Narayan Panwar, Aged About 36 Years, Ward No.04, Momasar Bass, Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development (Icds), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Rajasthan Sub Ordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Durgapura, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Moti Singh
For Respondent(s)         :



                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Order

07/04/2021

1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged

communication dated 12.12.2019, whereby petitioner's

candidature as an Anganwari Worker has been rejected for want of

requisite experience of 10 years.

2. The precise facts relevant for the present purposes are that

the petitioner applied for the post of Supervisor (Female) against

Anganwari Worker quota, pursuant to recruitment notification

dated 01.10.2018.

3. The petitioner submitted her application form on 03.11.2018

and claimed that she is having 10 years' experience of working as

an Anganwari Worker.

(2 of 5) [CW-718/2020]

4. The petitioner was firstly engaged as Anganwari Worker on

23.10.2009.

5. The terms of the advertisement provided following eligibility

criteria for the post against which the petitioner has vied:-

"7(i) Graduate of a University established by law in India, with 10 Years Experience as Anganwadi worker in ICDS."

6. A note was appended therewith which reads thus:-

"vko";d uksV%& ijUrq ,slk O;fDr] tks lh/kh HkrhZ gsrq fu;eksa ;k vuqlwfp;ksa esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr in ds fy, visf{kr "kS{kf.kd vgZrk okys ,sls ikB~;Øe ds vfUre o'kZ dh ijh{kk esa mifLFkr gks [email protected] gS ;k mifLFkr gks [email protected] gS] ml in ds fy, vkosnu djus dk ik= [email protected] fdUrq mls& 1- tgka p;u fyf[kr ijh{kk ,oa lk{kkRdkj ds nks izØeksa ds ek/;e ls fd;k tkrk gks] eq[; ijh{kk esa mifLFkr gksus ls iwoZ] 2- tgka p;u fyf[kr ijh{kk ,oa lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls fd;k tkrk gks] lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gksus ls iwoZ] 3- tgka dsoy fyf[kr ijh{kk ;k ;FkkfLFkfr] dsoy lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls fd;k tkrk gks] fyf[kr ijh{kk vFkok lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gksus ls iwoZ] leqfpr p;u ,tsUlh dks visf{kr "kS{kf.kd vgZrk fyf[kr ijh{kk dh frFkh rd vftZr dj ysus dk lcwr izLrqr djuk gksxkA cksMZ }kjk mDr inksa ij p;u fyf[kr ijh{kk ds ek/;e ls fd;k tk;sxkA "

7. After being qualified in the written examination, petitioner

was called for and appeared for document verification on

08.08.2019. However, the respondents rejected petitioner's

candidature vide impugned communication dated 12.12.2019,

inter alia, citing that she had not completed 10 years as

Anganwari Worker on the last date of submitting the application

form.

8. Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner relying

upon the essential note appended with the Clause 7 argued that

as per the note aforesaid, the candidate, who had completed 10

(3 of 5) [CW-718/2020]

years of experience till the date of document verification, is

entitled to be appointed inasmuch as the experience till the date

of document verification ought to have been considered.

9. Learned counsel emphasized that on the date of document

verification i.e. on 08.08.2019, the petitioner has completed about

10 years and 8 months of experience as Anganwari Worker.

10. Heard and perused the material.

11. A perusal of relevant Clause 7(i) reproduced hereinabove

shows that, it relates to eligibility and educational qualification

requiring a graduate degree and 10 years' experience as

Anganwari Worker in ICDS.

12. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, that in

terms of para No.2 of the note appended in Clause 7, the

petitioner's eligibility should be reckoned till the date of document

verification, is not tenable in law.

13. A careful reading of the entire Clause 7 particularly, note

appended therewith, reveals that the same is relatable to

educational qualification, which is evident from the fact that the

note begins with the condition that the candidate studying in final

year of the qualifying examination will be entitled for furnishing

the application form.

14. It is in this backdrop, the subsequent conditions mentioned

in points No.1, 2 and 3 are required to be considered.

15. Thus, a candidate who was studying in final year of the

qualifying course can furnish a proof of completing the educational

qualification at the time of written examination or at the time of

document verification or interview.

16. Obtaining the educational qualification cannot be equated

with gaining of experience. It is a settled proposition of law that

(4 of 5) [CW-718/2020]

unless the terms of advertisement or relevant rules otherwise

provide, the qualification has to be reckoned on the last date of

submitting application form.

17. As far as the experience part is concerned, the same has to

be read independent of the points appended with the above

referred essential note.

18. In considered opinion of this Court, a candidate must

possess requisite experience of 10 years at the time of submitting

application form.

19. It is settled proposition of law that the eligibility criteria and

requisite qualification etc. are required to be reckoned on the last

date of submitting application form.

20. In the present case, it is a question of awarding bonus marks

based on the experience certificate, hence, the respondent(s)

have rightly pegged the date i.e. date of issuance of

advertisement/notification, as the last date upto which experience

is to be counted, so that the candidates can procure an experience

certificate pursuant to the advertisement/notification and furnish

the application in time.

21. If petitioner's contention of counting the experience upto the

date of document verification is accepted, it would lead to an

anomalous situation; because no candidate would be able to

enclose a certificate of experience, at the time of submitting

application form and there will be different dates for different

candidates.

22. The similar controversy has been dealt with and decided by

this Court in SBCWP No.65/2021 (Kiran Choudhary Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.) on 19.02.2021.

(5 of 5) [CW-718/2020]

23. The relevant portion of the judgment aforesaid reads thus:-

"09. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition has no merit.

10. Concededly, at the time of submitting application form, petitioner had only 8 years and 3 months of experience.

11. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the respondents have provided leverage in relation to educational qualification and permitted all those candidates to apply who were in final year of the qualifying examination, there ought to have been a similar stipulation in relation to experience as well, is not tenable.

12. Firstly, obtaining the educational qualification cannot be equated with gaining of experience. It is a settled proposition of law that unless the terms of advertisement or relevant rules otherwise provide, the qualification has to be reckoned on the last date of submitting application form.

13. The petitioner on the date of submitting her application form i.e., on 13.10.2018, did not have requisite experience and thus, is not entitled for consideration.

14. Even if a liberal approach is adopted, the fact remains that the petitioner had not gained experience of 10 years, even at the time of issuance of first merit list, i.e., 16.01.2020.