Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Prakash Godara vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 17255 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 17255 Raj
Judgement Date : 18 November, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakash Godara vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 November, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Sameer Jain
     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
                D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1271/2019

Prakash Godara S/o Sh. Moolaram Ji, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Rathmal Bara, Osian, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Director
(Administration), Directorate Of Medicines And Health Services
Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthaya Bhawan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
                                                                ----Respondent
                             Connected With
                D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1316/2019
Ashok Amrawat S/o Sh. Narpat Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Uguna Bass Marwar, Mathaniya, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Director
(Administration), Directorate Of Medicines And Health Services,
Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthaya Bhavan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
                                                                ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. L. S. Udawat on behalf of
                               Mr. Kuldeep Mathur.
For Respondent(s)        :


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
                          Order

18/11/2021
By the court : PER HON'BLE JAIN, J.

In terms of order dated 17.11.2021, the appeal was restored

to its original number and was listed for admission along with

identical / similar matter D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1316/2019.

Both these appeals are heard together as the issue involved

is common and they are against common judgment. With the

consent of appellants/petitioners' advocate, the appeals are

decided at the stage of admission.

(2 of 4) [SAW-1271/2019]

The appellants/petitioners have filed writ petitions under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction for award

of bonus marks as per the certificate of experience for the

recruitment procedure for the post of Nurse Grade-II pursuant to

the advertisement dated 30.05.2018.

The petitioners applied for the post of Nurse Grade-II

pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.05.2018. The

advertisement provided for award of bonus marks based on

experience with a cut off date to be calculated till the date of

advertisement i.e. 30.05.2018.

The advertisement further provided that for each completed

years' experience, 10 marks were to be granted with maximum of

30 marks.

The earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners were decided

by learned Single Judge of this Court on 20.06.2018 relying upon

an order passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in Jaipal Meena

& Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.12152/2018), decided on 01.06.2018 and it was ordered to

issue experience certificate to the petitioners.

Pursuant to the said judgment dated 20.6.2018, the

petitioners were issued experience certificate dated 30.06.2018

indicating that they had experience of 3 years and one day on

the date of issuance of certificate. The petitioners have

produced the said certificates, however, it is submitted by the

petitioners that they have been awarded 20 marks only though

the certificates indicate that they have completed 3 years of

service as contractual employees. The contention of petitioners

before the learned Single Judge was that though the certificate

issued to the petitioners indicate experience of 3 years and one

(3 of 4) [SAW-1271/2019]

day on the date of issuance of experience certificate i.e. dated

30.06.2018, yet the bonus marks awarded based on experience

for the period upto the date of advertisement i.e. 30.05.2018 and,

therefore, they were only given 20 marks.

In short, inspite of having 3 years experience, they were

awarded 20 marks, whereas they should have been awarded 30

marks.

The learned Single Judge, on perusal of record and after

hearing the arguments dismissed both the writ petitions by

common judgment holding that the experience and the marks,

which were to be awarded as bonus, were to be considered till the

date of issuance of the advertisement, which admittedly was

30.05.2018 and, therefore, award of 20 marks was correct and

the experience certificate till the date of issuance was immaterial.

Against the said common judgment of the learned Single

Judge dated 22.08.2019 referred to as impugned order the

present appeals have been preferred by the petitioners.

On perusal of the advertisement dated 30.05.2018 and

specific relevant portion therein reproduced below:-

"¼i½ vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ik+=rk dh tkap ,oa nLrkostksa ds lR;kiu ds le; vkosnd dks eq[;ea=h chih,y thou j{kkdks"k] ,uvkj,p,e esfMds;j fjyhQ lkslk;Vh] ,M~l daVªksy lkslk;Vh] jk'Vªh; {k; fu;a=.k dk;Zdze] >kykokM+ vLirky ,oa fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; lkslk;Vh] lesfdr jksx fuxjkuh ifj;kstuk] jkT; LokLF; ifjokj dY;k.k laLFkku (SIHFW) ,oa jkT; ljdkj ds v/khu leku dk;Z djus dk foHkkx ds vf/kd`r izkf/kdkjh }kjk fu/kkZfjr izk:i esa tkjh vuqHko izek.k i= izLrqr djuk gksxkA ;g vuqHko izek.k i= foKkfir in ds fy;s vkWuykbZu vkosnu djus dh vafre frfFk ls iwoZ dk tkjh fd;k gqvk gksuk vko";d gSA vuqHko vof/k dh x.kuk foKfIr tkjh gksus dh frfFk rd dh tkosxhA vuqHko izek.k i= dk izk:i ^v* layXu gSA foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr izk:i ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh izk:i esa tkjh fd;k x;k vuqHko izek.k i= ekU; ugha gksxkA"

(4 of 4) [SAW-1271/2019]

We have no hesitation to confirm the decision of learned

Single Judge as it is rightly held that the calculation of marks was

to be counted till the date of issuance of advertisement i.e.

30.05.2018 and not till the date of issuance of certificate that was

30.06.2018. Therefore, the bonus marks awarded to the tune of

20 numbers was absolutely justified and correct.

In the light of above discussion, both these appeals being

devoid of merit are hereby dismissed.

                                   (SAMEER JAIN),J                                               (SANDEEP MEHTA),J



                                    52-SPhophaliya/Sachin/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter