Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunita Joshi vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 September, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:39615]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15586/2023
Sunita Joshi D/o Shri Prabha Shanker Joshi, Aged About 48
Years, Resident Of Saredi Badi, Tehsil- Garhi, District Banswara.
(Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Department Of Medical And Health,
Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Addl. Director (Admn.), Department Of Medical And
Health, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. Joint Director, Department Of Medical And Health
Services, Zone Udaipur (Raj.)
5. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Banswara,
Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Sangwa
Mr. B.L. Jat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG assisted by
Ms. Anita Rajpurohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
24/09/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely
covered by a judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.1669/2022 (Narendra Barwal V/s State of
[2024:RJ-JD:39615] (2 of 3) [CW-15586/2023]
Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 05.05.2022. The operative part
of the said judgment is reproduced as under :-
" I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the material available on
record.
The eligibility condition in terms of the advertisement,
inter-alia, reads as under : -
"1. Secondary or its equivalent;
and
2. Any Diploma in Medical Laboratory
Technology from an institute recognized by the
State Government;
or
having minimum three years experience of
working as Laboratory Assistant/Laboratory
Technician in State Government Hospitals on
contract basis or through Service Provider
Agency, shall also be eligible."
A perusal of the above would reveal that the experience
required is of working as Laboratory Assistant / Laboratory
Technician in the State Government Hospital on contract basis
or through Service Provider Agency and said candidate has
been held to be eligible. The certificate issued to the
petitioner Annex.6,inter-alia, indicates that the petitioner has
worked as Lab Sahayak. Even in the 11 pointer obtained by
the respondents from CM & HO, Nagaur (Annex.R/1),it is
indicated that the post of the petitioner was Lab Sahayak, the
contract order indicated his post as Helper, the payment has
been made of the post of Lab Sahayak and the work being
performed by him has been indicated as 'ySc esa tkap dk;Z esa lg;ksx'
and finally his post has been indicated as Helper.
As noticed herein-before, the eligibility condition, inter-
alia, indicates experience of working as Laboratory Assistant.
In terms of the 11 pointer relied on by the respondents also,
the petitioner was working as 'Lab Sahayak', if it is translated,
it means Lab Assistant and the work performed by him
indicated as helping in the working of testing in the Lab. The
submissions made that mere helping would not make him
[2024:RJ-JD:39615] (3 of 3) [CW-15586/2023]
eligible, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the eligibility
conditions indicated both, working as Laboratory Assistant /
Laboratory Technician and therefore, even those assisting in
the testing, as indicated in the 11 pointer, has to be held
eligible for the purpose of recruitment in terms of the
advertisement dated 29.05.2018.
The fact that the post for which the contract was
granted indicated the petitioner as Helper, by itself cannot be
a determining factor for the purpose of eligibility / grant of
bonus marks. It is the work, which is performed by the
person, which alone would determine the eligibility as the
eligibility condition indicates 'experience of working as Lab
Assistant/Lab Technician'.
In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the
petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to take
into consideration the experience of the petitioner in terms of
the experience certificate (Annex.6) and in case, he is
otherwise eligible, consider the case for appointment in terms
of the advertisement dated29.05.2018."
2. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to
controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
3. In view of the submissions made before this Court, the
present writ petition merit acceptance and the same is disposed of
in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of
Narendra Barwal(supra).
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
3-/Arun Pandey/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
