Navjot Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14005 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 14005 Raj
Judgement Date : 29 November, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Navjot Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 November, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14357/2022

Navjot Singh S/o Sh. Ravinder Jeet Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Dhani Chak, 7STG, Gram Panchayat, Dabli Kutub (Dabli Rathan), Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. District Collector, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh (Raj.).

4. Development Officer Cum Programme Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sadulsehar, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Sunil Joshi.
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Utkarsh Singh for
                                 Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
                       Order
29/11/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a

direction to the respondents to issue experience certificate for the

period 5.7.2008 to 5.7.2011.

Submissions have been made that the petitioner, who was

working as Gram Rojgar Sahayak with the Gram Panchayat,

Narayangarh worked under contract for the period 5.7.2008 to

5.7.2011.

Pursuant to LDC Recruitment-2013, the petitioner sought

issuance of experience certificate, however, the requisite

experience certificate has not been issued to the petitioner.

(2 of 4) [CW-14357/2022]

Further submissions have been made that though the

petitioner earlier did not fall in merit, in the exercise initiated by

the respondents pursuant to circular dated 7.9.2022. In the list

published on 19.9.2022 (Annex.11), name of the petitioner is

reflected in the wait list. However, for lack of requisite experience

certificate, the petitioner would not be entitled to grant of bonus

marks and, therefore, the petitioner again approached the

respondents for issuance of the experience certificate, which has

not been issued to the petitioner.

It is submitted that the experience certificate is being denied

to the petitioner on the ground that as by order dated 18.11.2011,

the petitioner was informed that on account of his absence since

6.7.2011, the agreement has come to an end automatically

pursuant to the circular dated 28.3.2013 (Annex.3), the certificate

has been refused to the petitioner, which is not justified.

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that

the terms of circular dated 28.3.2013 are specific, wherein it has

been provided that in case the services of the candidate has been

terminated on account of violation of conditions of the agreement,

certificate shall not be issued. Admittedly, the petitioner remained

absent since 6.7.2011 and, therefore, his services were

terminated on 18.11.2011 and as such the petitioner is not

entitled to issuance of experience certificate.

Reliance has been placed on Rampal Singh Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No. 5566/2019, decided on 23.5.2019.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

(3 of 4) [CW-14357/2022]

The order dated 18.11.2011, whereby the petitioner was

informed about the termination of the agreement, inter alia, reads

as under:-

"uotksr flag xzke jkstxkj lgk;d xzke iapk;r ukjk;.kx<+A fo"k; % Lor% vuqca/k lekIr dh lwpuk ckcrA mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd vki fnuakd 06-07-2011 ls yxkrkj vuqifLFkr py jgs gS ftlds lEcU/k esa iapk;r }kjk i= Øekad 149 fnukad 08-08-11 dks dkj.k crkvks uksfVl Hkh tkjh fd;k tk pqdk gS ftldk vki }kjk dksbZ tokc ugha fn;k x;k vr% lafonk vuqca/k dh 'krkZuqlkj yxkrkj vuqifLFkr jgus ij vkidk vuqca/k Lor% gh lekIr gks pqdk gSA"

A perusal of the above would reveal that the same is in the

form of a notice, inter alia, indicating to the petitioner about his

continued absence from 6.7.2011 and that fact that he has not

responded to the notice and thereafter, invoking the clause of the

agreement, it was noticed that the agreement has come to an end

automatically.

It would be seen that except for noticing the fact that

petitioner has remained absent, nothing pertaining to the working

of the petitioner during the period from 5.7.2008 to 5.7.2011 has

been indicated in the said order dated 18.11.2011.

The circular dated 28.3.2013 (Annex.3) deals with issuance

of certificate, in cases, where the candidates were not in service at

the time of issuance of certificate which, inter alia, provides as

under:-

"vuqHko izek.k&i= tkjh djrs le; ;g Li"V :i ls /;ku j[kk tkos fd lafonk dkfeZd] tks vkt dk;Zjr ugha gS] mldh lafonk lsok, lekIr D;ksa dh xbZ gSA ;fn lafonk dkfeZd dh lafonk lsok,a mldk dk;Z lUrks"ktud ugha gksus] foRrh; vfu;ferrk] xcu] vuq'kklughurk] vkijkf/kd d`R; ;k vuqcU/k 'krksZa dk mYya?ku djus ds dkj.k lekIr dh xbZ gS rks ,sls lafonk dkfeZdksa dks vuqHko izek.k&i= tkjh ugha fd;k tkosA "

A perusal of the above stipulation would reveal that it was

indicated to the authority issuing the certificate that if the

(4 of 4) [CW-14357/2022]

contractual services of the employee have been put to an end on

account of his working being not satisfactory, financial

irregularity, embezzlement, indiscipline, criminal act or violation

of the agreement, to such contractual employees, experience

certificate be not issued.

From the above stipulation, it is apparent that only in cases,

where the contractual employee has been found guilty of

misconduct that the certificate has been ordered to be refused,

however, in the present case as noticed except for the fact that in