Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nemi Chand Joshi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:15752) on 25 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:15752]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4243/2025
Nemi Chand Joshi S/o Prabhu Ram Joshi, Aged About 34 Years,
Vpo Sahawa, Ward No.13, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Services, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical, Health And Family
Welfare Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare
(Sihfw), Jhalana Doongri Colony, Ghat Ki Guni, Jaipur.
4. The Joint Director, Medical And Health Services, Zone
Bikaner, Bikaner.
5. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sriganganagar.
6. Senior Medical Officer In-Charge, Community Health
Centre Shri Vijaynagar, District Sriganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashpal Khileree
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Jain for
Mr. Mukesh Dave - Dy. G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
25/03/2025
1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking issuance of an
appropriate writ, order and/or direction commanding the
respondents to count 30 bonus marks of work experience in
accordance with the guidelines dated 25.04.2023 and accord
[2025:RJ-JD:15752] (2 of 4) [CW-4243/2025]
appointment to him on the post of Nursing Officer pursuant to the
advertisement dated 05.05.2023.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would
rely on a judgment dated 27.09.2024 rendered by a coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Arjun Sain vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10256/2024,
relevant of which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"10. Besides this, in the advertisement it was also mentioned that a
candidate will be entitled to certain bonus marks in accordance with
the guidelines issued by the State Government vide their order dated
25.04.2023. The order dated 25.04.2023 is produced on record as
Annex.-6. A bare perusal of the order dated 25.04.2023 shows that a
candidate who has served the respondent Department during the
Covid-19 pandemic (starting from 22.03.2020 to 13.02.2022) for a
period of less than two years will be entitled for 15 bonus marks, for
a period of more than 2 years to less than 3 years will be entitled for
20 marks and for more than 3 years, he will be entitled for 30 bonus
marks. Admittedly, the petitioner has served the respondent-
Department as Lab technician during the Covid-19 period and to
that effect, the experience certificate has been issued by the
competent authorities of the respondent-Department to the petitioner.
The experience certificate issued by the competent authorities is also
not disputed by the respondents.
11. Since, the experience certificate of the petitioner clearly
shows that he has performed the work of Lab Technician for less
than two years, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner
is entitled for 15 bonus marks while considering his candidature for
the post of Lab Technician in pursuance of the
advertisement/notification dated 31.05.2023.
12. The argument of learned Additional Advocate General that the
petitioner is not entitled for grant of bonus marks on the ground that,
while discharging the duties as Lab Technician in the respondent-
Department at that relevant point of time, he was not holding the
certificate of registration by the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council is
noted to be rejected on the ground that the notification/advertisement
dated 31.05.2023 neither prescribes nor mandates any condition that
only those experience certificates will be considered for grant of
bonus marks which have been issued by the respondent authorities
for the work done by a candidate after obtaining the certificate of
Registration by the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council. The
advertisement/notification also does not speak about a condition that
only the work experience of a candidate will be considered who has
performed the work of Lab Technician or Lab Assistant after
obtaining the certificate of registration of the Rajasthan Para-
Medical Council. The condition mentioned in the advertisement is
that, as of the date on which an application is filed, the candidate
[2025:RJ-JD:15752] (3 of 4) [CW-4243/2025]
must hold requisite qualifications as enumerated in the
advertisement including the certificate of registration with the
Rajasthan Para-Medical Council. Since the petitioner is meeting
both the criteria mentioned therein, therefore, there is no valid
reason for the respondents to deny the award of 15 bonus marks on
the basis of the certificate of experience produced by him.
13. The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Indian Airlines vs. S. Gopalakrishnan (supra), upon which
the learned Additional Advocate General relied, is clearly
distinguishable from the present case as in the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held that in addition to the
qualification, if the experience is prescribed it would only mean
acquiring the experience after obtaining the necessary qualification
but not before obtaining such qualification. Whereas, in the present
case, there is no column mentioned in the notification/advertisement
for any experience viz-a-viz the qualification required for the post of
Lab Technician. Similarly, as far as the judgment relied upon by the
learned Additional Advocate General rendered by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Madhav Singh (supra) is
concerned, the same is also clearly distinguishable from the facts
and circumstances of the present case.
14. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition merits
acceptance and the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to
grant 15 bonus marks to the petitioner on the basis of the experience
certificate produced by him and after grant of those 15 marks, if the
name of the petitioner comes in the merit, he shall be given
appointment on the post of Lab Technician advertised vide
advertisement dated 31.05.2023, if he is otherwise eligible in all
respects.
15. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to all the
consequential benefits on notional basis with effect from the date on
which his juniors have been given appointment. The order passed
shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."
3. Apropos, on a Court query posed to learned counsel for the
respondents qua the facts involved in the present case and those
in Arjun Sain (supra), he does not dispute that the same are
similar and the controversy indeed has already been adjudicated
by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid terms.
4. In the premise, given that controversy is no more res integra
and, even otherwise, the facts being also same as in the judgment
ibid, I see no reason why the benefit of the view taken by a co-
[2025:RJ-JD:15752] (4 of 4) [CW-4243/2025]
ordinate Bench of this Court, with which I am in agreement, be
not accorded to the petitioner. It is accordingly so ordered.
5. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment ibid.
However, all the consequential benefits be also accorded to the
petitioner as expeditiously as possible not later than three months
from the date of receipt of web-print of this order.
6. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
104-AK Chouhan/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
