GIRISH vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

@Judgmenttag-Judgment

Arun Monga, J

Petitioners herein seeks issuance of appropriate writ or direction/order commanding the respondents to award them bonus marks for their respective work experiences and thereafter consider their candidatures for the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade, pursuant to an advertisement dated 10.12.2024 (Annex.1).

Brief facts first. The advertisement (Annex.1) contemplated provision for bonus marks to the candidates who were either working under the State Government or Chief Minister BPL Project or Jeevan Raksha Kosh or National Health Mission or Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Jodhpur or any Ayush Project running under the State of Rajasthan. A proforma for experience certificate was prescribed in the advertisement itself.

2.1 The petitioners, working on contract in Ayurveda Department as Panchkaram Technician Massager, applied for the post of Compounder/ Nurse Junior Grade based on their work experience certificates. They apprehend that they would not be awarded bonus marks on account of the fact that their experience certificates have been issued by a private placement agency through which they were appointed. Hence, this petition.

Having perused the record appended with the writ petition and in light of the affirmative case pleaded by the petitioner, what emerges is as below:-

(i) that the petitioners' services were outsourced by Deputy Director, Ayurveda Department, Alwar through an arrangement with the private agency, namely, Gouravi Man Powar Agency;

(ii) the experience certificates have been issued by the Gouravi Man Powar Agency, though, of course, counter-signed by the District Ayurveda Officer;

(iii) and the experience certificates are not as per the proforma prescribed in the advertisement (Annx.1).

The aforesaid being the conceded position, let us now advert to the merits of the case. A preliminary objection has been raised at the threshold by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the case of the petitioner is adversely hit by Single Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Ram Singh Vs. the Directorate, Ayurveda Department & Ors. : SBCWP No.8162/2022, decided on 05.07.2022, wherein speaking for this Court, learned Brother Arun Bhansali, J. (as he then was in this Court), observed as under:-

"A perusal of the documents produced by the petitioner reveals that while the agreement is said to have been entered into between the District Ayurved Officer, Sriganganagar and the Tapovn Trust, Sriganganagar on 21.7.2016 (Annex.4), the order of petitioner’s engagement pursuant to the said agreement is dated 26.6.2016, as to how the engagement of the petitioner pursuant to the agreement dated 21.7.2016 could precede the said agreement, could not be explained by counsel for the petitioner except for the submission that there appears to be some mistake in the dates indicated, which submission is too spacious.

Be that as it may, a perusal of the requirements as indicated in the advertisement reveals that the experience by the candidate should have been acquired while working for the State Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jivan Raksha Kosh, National Health Mission, Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University or any Ayush Project operated in the State.

The experience claimed by the petitioner apparently does not fall within any of the stipulations. The claim made that the same would be within Ayush Project being operated within the State, cannot be countenanced as the stipulations made in the agreement does not brings the activity under a ‘Project’ as claimed."

The facts of the case in hand, as narrated hereinabove, clearly reflect that the petitioners herein are also similarly situated. The only difference being that there are no suspicion qua work experience certificates submitted by them. I am of the view that merely because the certificates are not being doubted, either by this Court or by the recruitment agency, shall in itself, not suffice entitlement to seek bonus marks. Bonus marks are to be awarded if the other parameters as prescribed in the advertisement are also met with. The entire objective and intent of giving the certificate in the prescribed proforma by the competent authority is to enable the recruitment agency to sift the grain from chaff, and not to harass the candidates, as is being argued.

Given the current plight of unemployment, it is but natural that whenever vacancies are advertised on any post, there are large number of candidates. It is thus required on the part of the recruitment agency to verify the individual claims of the candidates. Therefore, the administrative exigency warrants that certain parameters are laid down, which are applied cross-board to all the candidates. Granting bonus marks to the petitioners on the basis of work experience certificates, which are concededly neither on the required proforma nor by the competent authority would amount to rather hostile discrimination qua those who could not obtain the said prescribed performa certificates and they are thus not seeking bonus marks holding themselves rightly not entitled for the same.

Neither the pleadings nor anything on record show that similarly situated candidates, as the petitioners herein, who had not given the work experience certificates on the prescribed proforma issued by the competent authority, but yet they were considered entitled for grant of bonus marks.

As an upshot, no grounds to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed.

All pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.