Jitendra Chhangani vs State Of Rajasthan

Arun Monga, J

Petitioner an aspirant for the post of Nursing Officer, is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to accord him bonus marks as per his experience certificate dated 29.05.2023 and consequently his name be included in the merit list pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.05.2023.

Relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are as follows:

2.1. A total of 6981 posts of Nursing Officers were advertised, of which 1260 were reserved for the unreserved category candidates. The petitioner after completing his Senior Secondary, obtained a B.Sc. (Nursing) from the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, which is equivalent to the GNM course. Subsequently, the petitioner registered with the Rajasthan Nursing Council under registration number 62834. The registration certificate was initially valid until 31.12.2016 and was renewed on 17.06.2022, valid until 31.12.2026.

2.2. The petitioner meets all the eligibility criteria for the post of Nursing Officer and submitted his online application on 04.06.2023 under the General (EWS) category.

2.3. The selection criteria for this recruitment is based on the candidate’s academic records, and the merit list is prepared according to the marks obtained during the academic qualification. The authorities also provide bonus marks based on experience in various Government of Rajasthan schemes, including the National Health Mission. For each completed year, an incumbent is entitled to 10 bonus marks, with a maximum of 30 bonus marks for 3 completed years.

2.4. The petitioner secured 65.54% in Senior Secondary and 75.22% in B.Sc. (Nursing), giving an average of 70.38%. According to the selection criteria, 70% weightage is given to academic marks, resulting in 49.26 marks from academic scores. With 30 bonus marks for work experience, the petitioner’s total score is 79.270 marks. Based on this, the petitioner’s name appeared at serial no. 3412 in the list of candidates called for document verification, with 79.270 marks, issued on 29.08.2023. The petitioner appeared for document verification on 04.09.2023.

2.5. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Nagaur, issued an experience certificate on 29.05.2023, countersigned by the Joint Director, Medical and Health Services, Ajmer zone on 03.06.2023, and the petitioner received it on 04.06.2023, which was duly submitted.

2.6. After the document verification process, the petitioner was hopeful for his selection as a Nursing Officer. However, the provisional merit list issued on 07.10.2023 did not include his name, despite his higher marks compared to other candidates on the list.

2.7. The petitioner immediately submitted a representation on the online portal on 08.10.2023, requesting the inclusion of his name in the provisional merit list. Upon inquiry, the petitioner was verbally informed that his experience certificate was not in the prescribed format, and therefore, he was not granted the bonus marks. The petitioner then again submitted a representation on 11.10.2023 to the CMHO, Nagaur, requesting the issuance of a new experience certificate in the correct format.

2.8. Pertinently, regarding the experience certificate, the respondent authorities have issued multiple circulars/orders clarifying the required format, including a circular issued on 25.04.2023 and another on 04.05.2023, directing authorities to issue experience certificates in the prescribed format.

2.9. Hence, this writ petition.

The stand taken by the respondents in the reply inter alia is as follows:

3.1. That only experience certificates issued in the prescribed format, between the date of publication of the advertisement (i.e., 05.05.2023) and the last date for submission of the application form (i.e., 11.06.2023), will be considered. It is incumbent for a candidate to upload an experience certificate issued by a competent authority in the prescribed format. The advertisement clearly stipulates that it will be assumed that the candidate is fully satisfied with the experience certificate uploaded along with the application form. Basis of such certificate, the decision to grant or deny bonus marks is taken during document verification. That the candidates were also permitted to rectify any mistakes in their application forms from 21.06.2023 to 28.06.2023.

3.2. A perusal of the experience certificate produced by the petitioner reveals that the certificate is not in the prescribed format as required by the respondents. In light of this, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is thoroughly misconceived and baseless.

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions.

Firstly, Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a similar controversy already adjudicated by a Single Bench of this Court at Jaipur in Suhana Bano Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10518/2024, vide a detailed order/judgment dated 12.07.2024. Relevant thereof, being apposite, is reproduced hereinbelow:

“8. The only objection raised by the counsel for the respondent, that the first two experience certificates of the petitioner were in all containing 8 columns, as defined under Appendix-A of the advertisement, whereas the third experience certificate of the petitioner was not containing the 8th column, as per the mandate of Appendix-A. Hence, under these circumstances, the third experience certificate of the petitioner was discarded and the same was not taken into consideration by the authorities. This Court finds no substance in the arguments raised by the counsel for the respondents, as the genuineness and correctiness of all the three experience certificates is not doubted and disputed, as all the three experience certificates have been issued by one and the same authority and the same person i.e. Principal Medical Officer, Alwar, and therfore, the genuineness of the third certificate of the petitioner cannot be doubted, unless and until, this fact is established on the record that the third certificate of the petitioner was obtained by misrepresentation or by fraud. Accordingly, the third certificate cannot be treated as invalid only on the count that it is not containing 8th column, as per the requirement of Appendix- A. The judgments relied by the counsel for the respondents in the case of Kavita Panwar & Santosh Choudhary are not applicable, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as in those matters the experience certificates were not counter-signed by the authorities, prescribed under the advertisement/Rules but herein the instant case, all the three experience certificates of the petitioner have been issued and counter-signed by the competent authority. Hence, under these circumstances the impugned action of the respondents is not legally sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to the deprecated.”

Having reviewed the pleadings of the petition and the record appended therewith, there is no doubt that the petitioner’s case is on similar footing, in fact, I am of the view he stands on even better pedestal.

In response to a query from the Court, learned counsel for the respondents candidly states that the information in column No. 8, which was to be provided by the petitioner in the prescribed proforma, has no bearing on his eligibility.

Moreover, it transpires that the said information could have been provided to the petitioner upon being furnished by the respondents themselves, as it pertains to the length of service rendered by the petitioner during the Covid-19 pandemic period.

Be that as it may, having already observed that the said information had no bearing on the eligibility of the petitioner, his case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment, and I see no reason why the benefit of the same be not accorded to the petitioner.

As a result, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner in accordance with his performance and position in the merit list by accepting his work experience certificate and accord him bonus marks in accordance thereof. If the petitioner is otherwise found fit in all aspects for the post in question, which was reserved by an interim order of this Court dated 04.11.2023 granted by a Coordinate Bench, the post should be allocated to the petitioner by issuing an appointment letter.

The respondents shall complete the necessary exercise within 30 days from the date the petitioner approaches them with a certified web print copy of this order.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.