Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Singh Rajput vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22461) on 9 May, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:22461]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 464/2025
Mahendra Singh Rajput S/o Laxman Singh Rajput, Aged About
32 Years, Azadpura, Badi Sadri, Tehsil Badi Sadri, District
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health Services, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Rajasthan State Health And Family Welfare
Institute, Jaipur, Rajasthan
3. The Director (Non-Gazetted), Department Of Medical And
Health Services, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Additional Director (Administration), Department Of
Medical And Health Services, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Joint Director, Department Of Medical And Health
Services, Zone Udaipur, Rajasthan.
6. The Chief Medical And Health Officers, District
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. VLS Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Jain for
Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
09/05/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of the
rejection order (Annex.13) vide which the representation as filed
by the petitioner for affording appointment on the post of 'Nursing
Officer' in pursuance to the final select list dated 06.12.2024
(Annex.11) has been rejected.
[2025:RJ-JD:22461] (2 of 4) [CW-464/2025]
2. The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the
count that he did not furnish the experience certificate as per the
requisite format and in terms of condition No.1 of office order
dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure-5).
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy in
question rests covered by the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Bhagwan Puri Goswami Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10537/2024
(decided on 02.09.2024). In Soniya Bhagora Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15657/2024
(decided on 01.10.2024), while relying upon the judgment of
Bhagwan Puri Goswami (supra), the Court observed and held
as under:
"The contention of learned counsel for the respondents
with respect to the experience certificate is that the said
certificate has to be issued between 19.05.2023 (i.e. the date
of advertisement) and 18.06.2023 (which the last date of
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 26.01.2023 showcasing the
experience of working of the petitioner on the post of Covid
Health Worker from 28.07.2021 to 31.03.2022. Nevertheless,
the certificate has been issued by the Competent Authority
and the same has not been disputed by the respondents. The
fact of the matter is that even if an experience certificate is
issued either on 26.01.2023 or between 19.05.2023 to
18.06.2023, the relevant point is whether the work
experience of a candidate is between the COVID period or
not, therefore, in the opinion of this Court the date of
issuance of certificate is not relevant. The only relevancy is
the work performed by a probable candidate in the COVID
period for which the bonus marks have been ordered to be
[2025:RJ-JD:22461] (3 of 4) [CW-464/2025]
given by the State Government by issuing an order dated
25.04.2023. The objection raised by the respondents that the
certificate of experience should have been issued between
19.05.2023 to 18.06.2023, therefore, is absolutely
inconsequential and the same cannot be said to be based on
any rationality.
The condition of producing the experience certificate, if
issued between the period of 19.05.2023 to 18.06.2023
cannot be made admissible or cannot be limited to that
extent as the purpose of keeping this date is only to have
more and more participation of the candidates and,
therefore, limiting those candidates only to that extent
cannot be held justified. Therefore, any candidate having an
experience certificate of performing any duties in the
respondent Department during the COVID-19 period and a
certificate issued by the Competent Authority is produced
before the respondents, the same is liable to be taken into
consideration for awarding bonus marks.
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).
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
26.01.2023 and consider her case for grant of appointment
on the post of Female Health Worker. If 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.
The stay application and other pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed of.''
4. In view of the above ratio, the present writ petition is
allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the
[2025:RJ-JD:22461] (4 of 4) [CW-464/2025]
'Experience Certificate' (Annex.6) along with application form as
furnished by the petitioner and after consideration of the same,
grant appropriate bonus marks to the petitioner to which he is
eligible in terms of order dated 25.04.2023 (Annex-5).
5. Further, after grant of the said bonus marks, if the petitioner
is found meritorious and otherwise eligible, he be afforded
appointment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of the present order.
6. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
167-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
