Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Neelisha Rathore vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:41336) on 9 October, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:41336]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15165/2024
Neelisha Rathore W/o Sachin Chouhan, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Upala Bhoi Vada, Banswara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical And
Health Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Jaipur.
4. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Banswara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Sanwalot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
09/10/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that
while considering the candidature of the petitioner for
appointment on the post of Female Health Worker, she may be
granted 15 bonus marks for her working experience during
COVID-19 period on the strength of experience certificate dated
11.01.2023.
3. Briefly noted the facts in the present case are that the
petitioner performed her duties on the post of Covid Health
Assistant with the respondents from 20.05.2021 till 31.03.2022
and, therefore, she was issued an experience certificate dated
[2024:RJ-JD:41336] (2 of 7) [CW-15165/2024]
11.01.2023 for having served the Department by the Chief
Medical and Health Officer, Banswara.
4. The respondents issued an order dated 25.04.2023,
whereby, any person who had served the Department during the
pandemic of COVID-19 between the period of 22.03.2020 to
13.02.2022 on contract /temporary/urgent basis on different
posts, were held entitled for certain bonus marks on completion of
certain period mentioned in the order dated 22.03.2020.
5. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 19.05.2023, the
respondents invited applications for the post of Female Health
Worker. The petitioner being eligible in all respects applied for the
said post and she was called for document verification by the
respondents Vide Annexure-9. After the document verification, a
provisional merit list was prepared by the respondents, however,
her name was not reflected in the said list. Therefore, she
approached the respondents for including her name for
appointment on the post of Female Health Worker, but the same
was denied. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner's marks as reflected in Annexure-10 is 63.6%, whereas,
the cut off marks declared by the respondents in the category of
petitioner TSP(Gen) are 55.217. He submits that the petitioner
has scored more marks than the last cut off marks issued by the
respondents, therefore, her candidature is ought to be considered
for appointment on the post of Female Health Worker.
7. Learned counsel further submits that as per the order dated
25.04.2023, the petitioner is also entitled for 15 bonus marks on
the basis of the experience certificate issued by the respondents
[2024:RJ-JD:41336] (3 of 7) [CW-15165/2024]
on 11.01.2023, as she performed the work of Covid Health
Assistant for 316 days during the COVID-19 pandemic period.
Thus, her case is fully covered for grant of bonus marks as per the
order dated 25.04.2023, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for 15
bonus marks in the present selection process.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a
judgment rendered by this Court in case of Bhagwan Puri
Goswami vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.10537/2024), decided on 02.09.2024.
9. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the writ petition may
be allowed and the respondents may be directed to consider the
candidature of the petitioner for the post of Female Health Worker
after awarding her 15 bonus marks for the Experience Certificate
of working on the post of Covid Health Assistant and if after
awarding the bonus marks, the petitioner comes in merit, the
appointment on the post of Female Health Worker may be given to
her.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and submits that the conditions of the advertisement
are required to be adhered to in toto. He submits that as per the
condition No.3 of the advertisement, only the experience
certificate issued during the period from publication of the
advertisement and till the last date of submitting application form
is only admissible in the present case. Therefore, while awarding
the bonus marks, the experience certificate of all the probable
candidates issued between 19.05.2023 to last date of the
[2024:RJ-JD:41336] (4 of 7) [CW-15165/2024]
application form i.e. on 08.06.2023 are only required to be taken
note of by the respondents.
11. The second objection raised by the learned counsel for the
respondents is that the experience certificate is required to be
furnished in the prescribed format which was attached with the
advertisement dated 19.05.2023. Since in the present case, the
experience certificate of the petitioner has been issued on
26.01.2023 and the same is not in the prescribed format, her case
cannot be considered for appointment on the post of Female
Health Worker. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be
dismissed.
12. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone
through the relevant record of the case.
13. The controversy in respect to submission of application form
in prescribed format in the present case is almost identical to the
one which has already been decided by this Court in the case of
Bhagwan Puri Goswami (supra), wherein, this Court has held as
under :-
"It is true that advertisement dated 31.05.2023
contains specific stipulation with respect to the
experience certificate to be produced by an applicant
in the prescribed Proforma. However, a bare perusal
of the certificate produced by the petitioner and the
certificate which is required to be produced in
accordance with the advertisement shows that there
is only one of such column in the form of Column
No.8 wherein following questionary has been asked
and rest of the details in the form remains the same
which has been filled in by the petitioner. For ready
reference, column No.8 is reproduced as under : -
8. D;k dksfoM ds nkSjku 22 ekpZ 2020 ls 13 Qjojh
2022 rd dk;Zjr jgk gS \ ¼;fn mDr vof/k ds nkSjku
fu;qfDr gqbZ gS rks fu;qfDr vkns'k vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa
viyksM djus gksaxs½ & ¼gka@ugha½
The information asked for in Para 8 has already
been provided by the petitioner for having performed
[2024:RJ-JD:41336] (5 of 7) [CW-15165/2024]
the duties during the COVID Period as the certificate
issued by the competent authority was provided by
the petitioner along with the application form,
therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, the
information sought for in Column No.8 has been
provided by the petitioner in the form of relevant
documents produced along with the application form.
In the considered opinion of this court, non
filling of the information in column No.8 cannot be a
ground to refuse appointment to the petitioner on
the post of Lab Technician more particularly when
the certificate which is similar in nature has been
produced by one Phool Singh and the same has been
considered by the respondents and he has been
given appointment on the post of Lab Technician.
When substantial and technical consideration
are pitted against each other, the cause of
substantial justice deserves to be preferred.
Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed
to come in the way of the court while doing
substantial justice. The application of rules should be
applied with a humane approach. It must be grasped
that the judiciary is respected not on account of its
power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but
because it is capable of removing injustice and is
expected to do so. If the procedural violation does
not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party,
courts must lean towards doing substantial justice
rather than relying upon procedural and technical
violation. The litigation is nothing but a journey
towards truth which is the foundation of justice and
the court is required to adopt pragmatic approach
while doing the substantial justice.
In this view of the matter, candidature of the
petitioner cannot be denied in the present set of facts
more particularly when similarly situated candidate
namely Phool Singh has been granted appointment
on the post of Lab Technician.
Considering parity in the matter, the writ
petition merits acceptance and therefore, the same is
allowed. The respondents are directed to grant
appointment to the petitioner on the post of Lab
Technician, if he is otherwise found eligible. The
respondents shall comply with the directions issued
by this court within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The stay application and other pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of".
14. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents with
respect to the experience certificate is that the said certificate has
[2024:RJ-JD:41336] (6 of 7) [CW-15165/2024]
to be issued between 19.05.2023 (i.e. the date of advertisement)
and 18.06.2023 (which the last date of submitting application
form) is not admissible and noted to be rejected on the ground
that in the present case, the experience certificate has been
issued on 11.01.2023 showcasing the experience of working of the
petitioner on the post of Covid Health Worker from 20.05.2021 to
31.03.2022. Nevertheless, the certificate has been issued by the
Competent Authority and the same has not been disputed by the
respondents.
15. The core question involved in the present case is that a
candidate is entitled for bonus marks if he has performed the
duties during the COVID-19 period as per the State Government's
order dated 25.04.2023 and has gained work experience during
the period mentioned in the said order. The intention of the State
Government is very clear that a person who has performed the
duties and gained work experience during the COVID-19 period
should be compensated by giving bonus marks and a certificate of
such work experience is issued by the competent authorities of a
date prior to the date of the last date of the filing of the
application form. Therefore, in the humble opinion of this Court,
there is no rationality for keeping the condition that only those
certificates which had been issued between 19.05.2023 to
18.06.2023 will be considered for grant of bonus of marks.
Therefore, any candidate having experience certificate of
performing any duties in the respondent-Department during the
COVID-19 period along with a certificate issued prior to the last
date of filing the application form by a competent authority is
entitled for grant of 15 bonus marks. In this view of the matter,
[2024:RJ-JD:41336] (7 of 7) [CW-15165/2024]
the petitioner who is holding the certificate of work experience
during the COVID-19 period is entitled to be granted 15 bonus
marks.
16. As far as the absence of column No.8 in the application form,
this Court has already taken a view in case of Bhagwan Puri
Gosami(supra), thus, this Court is not inclined to take a different
view than the one taken in Bhagwan Puri Goswami (supra).
17. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition
merits acceptance, the same is allowed. The respondents are
directed to grant 15 bonus marks to the petitioner on the strength
of the experience certificate dated 11.01.2023 and consider her
case for grant of appointment on the post of Female Health
Worker. If after awarding bonus marks, the petitioner is found
meritorious and fit in all other aspects, the respondents shall issue
the order of appointment within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order strictly in accordance
with law.
18. The stay application and other pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
80-/Arun Pandey/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
