Sunita vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8891 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:36927]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8822/2021

Sunita D/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 43 Years, R/o VPO Matani, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani (Haryana).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Services (Group-III), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Additional Director (Administration), Now Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
                                Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Order

01/11/2023

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

challenged the action of the respondents for not granting bonus

marks to her for the experience certificate she had procured and

produced.

2. The facts appertain for the present purposes are that the

petitioner, having requisite educational qualification, vied for the

post of Female Health Worker - Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery (in short

"ANM"), notified by the advertisement dated 18.06.2018.

3. While submitting online application form, the petitioner

claimed 20 bonus marks on the basis of the experience certificate

[2023:RJ-JD:36927] (2 of 6) [CW-8822/2021]

dated 19.07.2018, issued by the Chief Medical & Health Officer,

Bikaner, for having worked for 2 years, 7 months on the post of

ANM and Lady Health Visitor (LHV).

4. When the first select list was issued by the respondents,

petitioner did not find her name mentioned and, therefore, a writ

petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.838/2020 came to be filed

by her.

5. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

19.02.2020, disposed of the said writ petition along with a bunch

of writ petitions and directed the respondents to consider the

petitioner's experience certificate in accordance with law.

6. The respondents issued first list of appointed candidates on

28.04.2020 in which name of petitioner and the other candidates

who had experience of working as LHV were not included.

7. It is to be noted that by way of order dated 23.06.2020, the

claims of various candidates who had worked as LHVs in relation

to bonus marks were rejected by the respondents on the ground

that the experience gained while working as LHV is not equivalent

to ANM; petitioner's name was, however not given in such list,

issued by the respondents.

8. The candidates (Vidya Kumari Tailor, Kavita Verma, Suman

Nai and Sumitra) whose claims for bonus marks were rejected,

approached this Court by way of filing separate writ petitions

being S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.4974/2020, 5001/2020,

5006/2020 & 4970/2020, respectively, which came to be allowed

vide judgment dated 08.09.2020.

9. In the judgment aforesaid, this Court had clearly held that

the persons working on the post of Lady Health Visitors are

[2023:RJ-JD:36927] (3 of 6) [CW-8822/2021]

entitled for bonus marks, as the duties discharged by a LHV are

akin to the duties discharged by a Female Health Worker (ANM).

10. The said judgment has attained finality and the respondents

had issued appointment orders to the candidates covered by the

adjudication so made.

11. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with

the grievance that though her claim for bonus marks is valid, as

has been held by this Court in the case of Vidya Kumari Tailor

(supra), the respondents neither accorded bonus marks to her nor

have they passed any order rejecting her claim for bonus marks.

12. Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner

argued that the respondents have proceeded arbitrarily and have

not accorded 20 bonus marks to the petitioner, which she is

entitled to. He submitted that if 20 marks are added in

petitioner's total marks obtained, her name would come in the

select list, inasmuch as, names of many candidates having

secured less marks than the petitioner's proposed marks have

been included in the select list, lastly issued on 18.02.2021 and

such candidates have been appointed by the respondents.

13. Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General, on

the other hand, argued that the present petition suffers from

delay and laches, as the last list of appointment has already been

issued on 18.02.2021. On the basis of communication dated

02.08.2023, he informed that all the post of Female Health

Worker, pursuant to subject advertisement have been filled,

except 998 posts, which have been kept reserved for the

candidates covered by the judgment in the case of Sanju Vs.

State of Raj. and Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2178/2020.

[2023:RJ-JD:36927] (4 of 6) [CW-8822/2021]

14. So far as merits of petitioner's contention is concerned,

learned Additional Advocate General had practically no defence to

offer.

15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

16. A simple look at petitioner's experience certificate dated

19.07.2018, issued by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bikaner

reveals that she had discharged her duties as ANM and then as

LHV for 2 years, 7 months. The petitioner had placed reliance on

such certificate in the application form, which the petitioner had

submitted.

17. It has also been asserted by learned counsel for the

petitioner that during the course of the document verification, the

petitioner had produced such certificate, but since the respondents

were of the view that a candidates having worked as LHV were not

entitled for the bonus marks, requisite 20 bonus marks were not

awarded to her, for which name of the petitioner was not shown in

the list of selected candidates, issued by the respondents.

18. It is to be noted that petitioner had earlier preferred a writ

petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.838/2020), which came to be

disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2020 and the

respondents were directed to consider the experience certificate

issued to her in accordance with law.

19. Therefore, in the light of judgment dated 08.09.2020,

passed by this Court in the case of Vidya Kumari Tailor (supra),

wherein it has been held that a candidate having worked as Lady

Health Visitor is entitled for bonus marks for the experience she

has gained, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have

[2023:RJ-JD:36927] (5 of 6) [CW-8822/2021]

accorded 20 bonus marks to the petitioner on the basis of the

certificate she had produced.

20. It is an undenied fact that the petitioner's claim for the

bonus marks was never rejected by the respondents.

21. Such being the position, this Court accepts the stand of the

petitioner that she was waiting for the appointment after awarding

the bonus marks, inasmuch as, this Court had already held in the

case of Vidya Kumari Tailor (supra) that a candidate having

worked as Lady Health Visitor is entitled for bonus marks.

22. The last list for appointment was issued by the respondents

on 18.02.2021 and well within a period of 5 months, the petitioner

has approached this Court by way of preferring the present writ

petition.

23. Hence, the present petition cannot be treated to be suffering

from any delay much less laches.

24. It is also not in dispute that in the case of similarly situated

candidates namely Vidya Kumari Tailor and others, this Court has

held that a candidate having worked as Lady Health Visitor is

entitled for bonus marks for the purpose of recruitment to the

post of Female Health Worker (ANM).

25. If on merit, petitioner's case is covered, the respondent

cannot deprive her of the right to get the job on technical ground

of delay and laches, which is otherwise unsustainable.

26. As a consequence of the discussion above, the writ petition is

allowed.

27. The respondents are directed to award bonus marks to the

petitioner for the period she had performed the duties of LHV and

if she secures more marks than the cut off of her category,

[2023:RJ-JD:36927] (6 of 6) [CW-8822/2021]

appointment within a period of eight weeks from today be

accorded to the petitioner.

28. The petitioner shall be entitled to all notional benefits from

the date the candidates less meritorious than her have been

accorded appointment.

29. Stay petition also stands disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 36-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)