Manisha Jangir vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 6518 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15767/2018

Manisha Jangir D/o Shri Banshi Lal Jangir, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 326, Gurudwara, Marg, Opposite Bhairu General Store, Tilak Nagar, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S.Shekhawat for Mr. Kailash Jangid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta for Mr. K.S.Rajpurohit, AAG

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

29/08/2023

1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought

direction to the respondents to consider the experience gained

while working as a GNM.

2. The facts appertain are that the petitioner was first

appointed on contractual basis pursuant to the recruitment

notification for the post of Nurse Grade II issued by the State on

27.06.2007.

(2 of 6) [CW-15767/2018]

3. The petitioner's services were, however, terminated on

31.03.2009 as a result of a judgment passed by this Court

directing the State to revise the result and prepare a fresh merit

list - District-wise.

4. Consequence to revision of the result, the petitioner was

ousted and her appointment was brought to an end by order dated

31.03.2009. The petitioner preferred a writ petition, which came

to be disposed of with bunch of cases led by S.B. Civil Writ

No.6207/2009 : Rajkumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

per-viam order dated 07.12.2016.

5. While disposing of petitioner's writ petition, this Court had

directed the respondent - State to give contractual employment to

the petitioner by observing thus:-

"Those who have already been appointed and are working and their names find place again in the district-wise merit list, shall not be disturbed while those who had been ousted on account of revised merit list, shall be given appointment and notional benefit, if so available as per the scheme."

6. Consequent to the determination of petitioner's aforesaid

writ petition, the petitioner was engaged on contract basis by the

order dated 04.11.2016.

7. In the meantime, another recruitment notification dated

26.02.2013 for the post of Nurse Grade - II came to be issued by

the respondents, in which the petitioner applied.

                                     (3 of 6)                    [CW-15767/2018]


8.    It    is noteworthy that the petitioner had claimed bonus

marks for the experience she had gained by such time - one year

and nine months.

9. The respondents obviously gave only 10 bonus marks to the

petitioner on the basis of the experience she had gained.

10. The recruitment notified vide advertisement dated

26.02.2013 was admittedly over on 25.10.2016, when the first list

was issued.

11. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition on

03.10.2018 and claimed that she should have been given bonus

marks based on her experience for the period she has notionally

served the respondents.

12. Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, learned counsel for the petitioner

invited Court's attention towards direction No. 4 contained in the

order dated 07.12.2016 (reproduced in para No.5 above) and

contended that by order dated 07.12.2016, this Court had given

clear direction to the respondents to provide her notional benefits

and hence, the respondents ought to have provided her notional

benefits not only up to the date of disposal of the writ petition but

further for the period she has served on rejoining on 04.11.2016.

13. Learned counsel argued that this Court had saved the time

period lapsed during the period petitioner's writ petition remained

pending and when the State itself has offered her appointment

vide order dated 04.11.2016, there is no reason for denying the

bonus marks for the petitioner's notional experience.

14. Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents invited Court's attention towards the note appended

(4 of 6) [CW-15767/2018]

in petitioner's appointment order dated 04.11.2016 and

highlighted that in the teeth of the note appended in the

appointment order, petitioner cannot claim any experience actual

or notional.

15. It was argued by learned counsel that if the petitioner was so

aggrieved, she ought to have challenged the note appended with

her appointment order and that in the face of the undertaking

which the petitioner had given, she cannot claim bonus marks or

the notional experience as claimed in the present writ petition.

16. Learned counsel relied upon a judgment dated 09.02.2023

passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of

Kamal Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No. 1928/2023 and submitted that in identical

circumstances, the claim of notional experience has been denied.

17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

18. The conundrum which is required to be solved in the present

case is the expression used by co-ordinate Bench of this Court

while deciding petitioner's case - "notional benefit, if so available

as per the scheme".

19. A perusal of the order dated 07.12.2016 reveals that no

clear-cut direction was given by this Court for grant of notional

benefit for the experience and it was circumscribed/qualified by

the phrase "if so available as per the scheme". Neither the

scheme nor any policy or circular issued by the State Government

contain any stipulation regarding notional experience. Hence, the

benefit of purported notional experience cannot be allowed to her.

(5 of 6) [CW-15767/2018]

20. That apart, the petitioner's contractual engagement had

come to an end on 31.03.2009, wherafter the writ petition which

she had filed remained pending without any interim order.

21. It was during the pendency of the writ petition, that the

petitioner had applied for the post of Nurse Grade - II, pursuant

to the advertisement dated 26.02.2013. She had naturally

claimed bonus marks on the experience so far gained (one year

and nine months).

22. Petitioner could otherwise not claim any bonus marks for the

experience, which she is claiming based on the stipulation

contained in the order dated 07.12.2016, passed in her writ

petition.

23. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot claim more

than what she had claimed in her application. That apart, the

petitioner's stand that she should be given benefit of notional

experience is fallacious, inasmuch as she came to be appointed on

contractual basis as late as on 04.11.2016.

24. That apart, the note appended with petitioner's appointment

order dated 04.11.2016 divests the petitioner of right (if any) to

claim notional experience, even if there is some substance in

petitioner's contention that while disposing of her writ petition vide

order dated 07.12.2016, the High Court had issued direction to

the respondent - State to give notional benefits.

25. The reliance of petitioner's counsel upon the judgment dated

03.01.2020, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case

of Naveen Patidar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S. B. Civil

Writ Petition No. 10729/2018, lends little help to her case,

(6 of 6) [CW-15767/2018]

because, in the case of Naveen Patidar (supra), the Division Bench

(in his own case) had directed the State to give all applicable

notional benefits.

26. In the case of Naveen Patedar (supra), the Court had come

to a definite conclusion that it was the fault of the State

Government and since during the pendency of the writ petition,

appointment was lately given to said Naveen Patidar (on

10.07.2015), the Division Bench protected rights. But, the

present case involves neither fault of the State Government nor

does the order dated 07.12.2016 contains definite direction for

grant of bonus marks.

27. It would not be inappropriate to add that the recruitment

which was initiated in 2013 had long back been over, whereafter

two more recruitment of 2018 and 2023 have taken place. Hence,

no indulgence can be granted to the petitioner.

28. In view of the discussion foregoing and considering that the

petitioner had claimed bonus marks only for her experience of one

year and nine months, this Court is of the firm view that the

petitioner's endeavor is a bit too ambitious to accept and difficult

to digest.

29. The writ petition, therefore, fails.

30. The stay application also stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

11-akansha/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)