Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amarchand Meena vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:3544) on 20 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:3544]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10274/2023
Amarchand Meena S/o Sh. Gopal Ji Meena, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Mukam Post, Palodara, Tehsil Salumber, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical And
Health Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Medical And Health Services, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical And Health Services,
Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Additional Director (Admn), Medical And Health Services
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pramendra Bohra.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rakhi Choudhary, Dy.GC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
20/01/2025
1. Petitioner herein, inter alia seeks quashing of an office order
dated 03.07.2023, vide which the respondents rejected the
candidature of the petitioner for the post of Lab Assistant (TSP
Area) pursuant to advertisement dated 29.05.2018.
2. Briefly speaking, relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are
that the petitioner was initially appointed on contractual basis as a
Lab Assistant in 2013 under the Chief Medical & Health Officer,
Udaipur, through a placement agency and joined his duties as per
[2025:RJ-JD:3544] (2 of 4) [CW-10274/2023]
the appointment order. In 2018, the respondent department
issued an experience certificate in favor of the petitioner.
2.1 The respondents advertised the regular vacancy for the post
of Lab Assistant on 29.05.2018. The petitioner submitted his
online application form along with the requisite documents for the
same. The respondent department received the petitioner's
experience certificate in the prescribed format, which clearly
stated that the petitioner was working as a Lab Assistant.
2.2. The respondent department issued lists for document
verification on 28.08.2018 and 22.09.2018, in which the
petitioner's name was included. However, an interim seniority list
was issued on 21.12.2021, excluding his name. Upon inquiring,
the petitioner was informed that the Chief Medical & Health
Officer, Udaipur, had mistakenly stated in the experience
certificate that the petitioner was working as a Cleaner instead of
a Lab Assistant, which led to the omission of his name from the
seniority list.
2.3. Aggrieved by the omission, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 311/2022 (Amar Chand Meena & Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.) before this Court. The writ petition was allowed
on 16.09.2022, with directions similar to those in the case of
Bhawna Lohar (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1535/2022, decided on
24.05.2022). Despite the Court's order, the respondent
department failed to re-examine the petitioner's documents and,
without providing the petitioner an opportunity, passed the
impugned order on 03.07.2023, rejecting the petitioner's
candidature. Hence, this petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:3544] (3 of 4) [CW-10274/2023]
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions
and gone through the case record.
4. First and foremost, on a query being posed to the learned
counsel for the respondents, if the aforesaid facts, which are duly
supported by affidavit of the petitioner, are disputed by the
respondents, she would respond in negative.
5. Since the facts are not disputed, it so appears that the
controversy herein since has been put to rest vide judgment
rendered in Narendra Barwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1669/2022, therefore, the petition
has to be necessarily allowed in the same terms.
6. Neither the ratio rendered in the judgment is disputed by the
learned counsel for the respondents nor even otherwise, the
applicability thereof to the present case in light of the facts as
narrated hereinabove.
7. On a query being posed whether any appeal had been filed,
learned counsel for the petitioner states that no intra-Court appeal
regarding the aforesaid judgment has been filed and that the
judgment has attained finality. Therefore, I see no reason why the
benefit thereof should not be given to the petitioner. For ready
reference, the relevant of the judgment ibid, for the benefit of the
respondents, is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"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
[2025:RJ-JD:3544] (4 of 4) [CW-10274/2023]
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 'लैब में जां च कार्य में सहयोग' 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 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'."
8. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid views. As an
upshot, petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to proceed
further by processing the case of the petitioner, if he is otherwise
found fit, meritorious and eligible.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
69-DhananjayS/Rmathur/-
Whether fit for reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
