Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Govind Dayma vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:23301) on 14 May, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:23301]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9104/2025
1. Govind Dayma S/o Shri Chhotu Ram, Aged About 25
Years, Currently Residing At House No. 887 In Front Of
Kalka Mata Mandir, Pahada, Udaipur, Rajasthan- 313001.
2. Akhtar Ali S/o Farukh Ali, Aged About 28 Years, Resident
Of Sadar Gali, Deshwali Mohalla, New Ward No 8,
Kishangarh, Ajmer, Rajasthan- 305801.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Medical And Health Science (Group-Ii), Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical Health And Family
Welfare, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare
(Sihfw), Department Of Health, Jaipur.
4. The Joint Director, Medical And Health Services Zone,
Ajmer.
5. The Principal Medical Offecer, Government Yagya Naryan
Hospital, City Road, Ajmer, Kishangarh, Rajasthan,
305801.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Arora with
Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC with
Mr. Tanuj Jain.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
14/05/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of orders
dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-12) whereby the representations as
filed by the petitioners in pursuance to the directions issued in the
[2025:RJ-JD:23301] (2 of 5) [CW-9104/2025]
earlier writ petitions being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15311/2024
(decided on 10.10.2024) and S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.15131/2024 (decided on 27.09.2024) as filed by petitioner
Nos.1 & 2 respectively, stood rejected.
2. Vide orders dated 10.10.2024 & 27.09.2024, it was directed
as under:
"Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement
that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is
squarely covered by a judgment rendered by this Court in
batch of writ petition led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.11947/2024 (Mukesh vs.The State of Rajasthan &
Ors.), decided on 25/09/2024.
The operative part of the said judgment is
reproduced asunder:-
"In view of the discussions made above, the writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to decide the candidature of the
petitioner and other similarly situated candidates by
verifying the requisite documents and the other
information required by the Department
expeditiously preferably within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order and issue the appointment order in their
favour, if they are eligible in all respects. In cases in
which the petitioner/persons who are not entitled or
eligible to be appointed on the post of Nursing
Officer, the respondents are directed to pass a
speaking and reasoned order".
In view of the above submissions, the present writ
petition is also disposed of in terms of the order passed by
this Court in Mukesh (supra)."
3. The representations as filed by the petitioners have been
dismissed on the count that in terms of the ratio laid down in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.1596/2020; Kirti Kumar Patidar vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 03.09.2020) and S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.2577/2020; Mahipal Lakhera vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors. (decided on 11.01.2021), the criteria to compute the period
[2025:RJ-JD:23301] (3 of 5) [CW-9104/2025]
of experience of a candidate has to be on basis of the payment as
made to him/her.
4. So far as the petitioners are concerned, the payment was
made in cash to them by an NGO. Therefore, the veracity of the
period of experience as reflected in the experience certificate is
not verified and hence, the bonus marks qua the said experience
period on the post of 'Lab Technician' cannot be granted to them.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
observation as recorded in orders dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-
12) to the effect that the petitioners were paid salary in cash is
totally erroneous as the salary was paid to the petitioners through
account payee cheques. In support of his submission, counsel
pointed out to the specific per month entries (Annexure-3) in the
bank account of the petitioners qua the said salary.
6. Counsel further relied upon communication dated
18.06.2024 (Annexure-11) of the concerned Medical Officer of the
Government Hospital, Kishangarh (Ajmer) whereby he specifically
verified that petitioner No.1 was appointed as 'Lab Technician'
from the period of 18.10.2021 to 02.08.2022 and petitioner No.2
was appointed from the period of 08.05.2021 to 02.08.2022 with
the said hospital and the payment was made by Kishangarh
Marble Association, Kishangarh.
7. Counsel also submits that the work of the petitioners as Lab
Technicians during the COVID-19 period with the Government
Hospital at Kishangarh is not disputed. The only fact disputed is
that their salary was paid by the said Marble Association and the
veracity of such payment is not decipherable whereas it is clearly
proved vide cogent documentary evidence that the petitioners
[2025:RJ-JD:23301] (4 of 5) [CW-9104/2025]
were paid by the said Marble Association per month through
account payee cheques.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to
refute the fact that the petitioners were in fact appointed as Lab
Technicians with the Government hospital at Kishangarh. He
however, disputes the experience certificates and submits that the
attendance register had not been submitted and further, there is
no proof that the petitioners were paid during that period.
9. Heard the counsels and perused the record.
10. A bare perusal of the documents (Annexure-3) reveals that
the petitioners were paid per month through account payee
cheques by the Marble Association which maintains and runs the
Government hospital at Kishangarh. The fact of them having been
appointed during COVID-19 period and they having worked during
the said period, is not disputed. The nature of work performed by
them being equivalent to the post in question, is also not
disputed.
11. In the specific opinion of this Court, the representations of
the petitioners having been rejected only on the count of the
payment to the petitioners been made in cash is on the face of it,
erroneous.
12. The intention of the State while providing for grant of bonus
marks in government recruitments, definitely was to give an extra
advantage to the incumbents who had worked during the COVID-
19 period. The petitioners having worked during that period on the
post of 'Lab Technician' once not been disputed, the benefit could
not have been denied to them only on technical grounds. Further,
when it is proved on record that they were paid during that
[2025:RJ-JD:23301] (5 of 5) [CW-9104/2025]
period, may be by an NGO running the Government hospital, the
aspect that veracity of experience certificate is doubtful, is also
erroneous.
13. The said observation is also erroneous in view of the
communication/certificate dated 18.06.2024 (Annexure-11) of the
competent authority which specifically verified that petitioners
worked with a Government hospital during the COVID-19 period.
14. Evidently, the said communication is by the Chief Medical
Officer, Kishangarh (Ajmer) of a Government hospital and there is
no reason to dispute the same or question the veracity of the
same. The rejection of the representations of the petitioners vide
orders impugned dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-12) is clearly on
the face of it, erroneous and hence, deserve to be and are hereby
quashed and set aside.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents
are directed to grant bonus marks to the petitioners as per their
work experience and in terms of circular dated 25.04.2023
(Annexure-4). After granting of the said bonus marks if the
petitioners find place in merit list and are otherwise found eligible,
they be afforded appointment on the post of 'Lab Technician'
within a period of eight weeks from now.
16. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
272-KashishS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
