Santosh Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, inter-alia, challenging the action of the respondents, refusing to award bonus marks to her,

who has worked as Nurse Grade-II under the NRHM scheme promulgated by the State Government.

The skeleton facts for the present purposes are that the petitioner having acquired requisite educational qualification, applied for the post of Nurse

Grade-II pursuant to the vacancies advertised vide notification dated 30.05.2018.

When the result of recruitment was declared, the petitioner did not find her name in the merit/select list. On enquiry she realized that regardless of

the fact that she had experience of more than three years as Nurse Grade-II, the respondents have not accorded due bonus marks to her credit.

It is the case of the petitioner that she had worked as Nurse Grade-II from 26.06.2007 to 23.01.2018 and the experience she has acquired during

her contractual employment, entitles her to 30 bonus marks.

Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner inviting Court’s attention towards certificates dated 13.03.2013 and 23.01.2018, submitted

that these certificates clearly show that the petitioner has worked as Nurse Grade-II and thus, the respondents were not justified in rejecting her claim

for bonus marks.

Learned counsel argued that the certificates produced by the petitioner contained all requisite information and the certificate dated 13.03.13 was

issued by competent authority, viz., Chief Medical & Health Officer, Pali. He meekly added that petitioner’s other certificate dated 23.01.2018 too

was issued by Block Chief Medical Officer, Jaitaran and thus, the petitioner was entitled for bonus marks.

Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned counsel appearing for respondents, submitted that as per the terms of the advertisement, the petitioner was required

to furnish requisite experience certificate, duly counter signed by the competent authority mentioned in Clause-8 of the subject advertisement.

Inviting Court’s attention towards the certificates produced by the petitioner, he argued that the same are not counter signed by the Joint

Director, Medical & Health Department and such certificates in absence of counter signatures cannot be considered for grant of bonus marks.

Taking the Court through Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Services Rules, 1965, he argued that it is the domain of the State

Government to prescribe not only the bonus marks but also the manner and procedure for grant of such bonus marks. In support of his contention,

learned counsel relied upon a Coordinate Bench judgment dated 16.01.2018 in the case of Kavita Panwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.5346/2016) duly affirmed by Division Bench, vide judgment dated 07.03.2019.

Mr. Mehta added that the terms and conditions of the advertisement are sacrosanct and a candidate has to strictly adhere to such conditions; in

admitted case of violation or non-compliance, the petitioner cannot claim any equity. He argued that when it comes to claiming bonus marks, a

candidate is required to be more cautious and ensure that certificate he/she is relying upon, has been issued in the prescribed proforma, appended with

the advertisement.

Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner’s certificate are/were not in accordance with the prescribed proforma; it lacked

verification/counter signature by the competent authority and thus, the respondents were justified in not considering them for awarding bonus marks. It

was pointed out that second certificate dated 23.01.2018 has been issued by Block Chief Medical Officer, Jaitaran, which is not even a competent

authority for grant of certificate.

Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, submitted that claim of bonus marks is dependent upon the experience gained by a

candidate under various notified/specified schemes of the Government. The fact that petitioner has worked as Nurse Grade-II as contractual

employee with the State Government is not at all in dispute; the requirement of counter signature thus, becomes a mere formality. According to him,

since petitioner’s certificate was not counter signed, the respondents ought to have provided the petitioner an opportunity to get the same counter

signed, instead of outrightly rejecting her claim.

Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically submitted that if a candidate falls into considerable zone and is substantively entitled for bonus

marks, his/her claim cannot be rejected on the ground of trivial technical formalities, including the requirement of counter signature.

He prayed that opportunity be granted to the petitioner to get her certificates counter signed with a corresponding direction to the respondents to

award bonus marks, of course after ascertaining the veracity or genuineness of the certificates.

Learned counsel lastly placed reliance upon judgment dated 10.10.2017 rendered in the case of Karni Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.13506/2015) and submitted that present petition also deserves to be allowed, as prayed.

Before delving upon the issue at hands, it would be worthwhile to go through the relevant conditions of the advertisement, which are reproduced

hereunder:

“7. :-

1965 19

(i) ,

, , ,

◌ ◌ , ,

;

‘’

(ii) ,

, , , / ../

/ . . ./ , , , / , ,

◌◌

, , ,

, , ,

/ /

8.

(i) ,

/

(ii) , , ,

,

â€​

A simple look at the above noted conditions leaves no room for doubt that a candidate was required to furnish an experience certificate in

prescribed format; “ ( )â€​. The prescribed format of the experience certificate has been appended with the advertisement itself.

Clause-8 of the advertisement unequivocally required that certificate issued by Chief Medical & Health Officer or other competent authority is

required to be counter signed/verified by the Joint Director of the concerned zone. So far as the petitioner’s certificate dated 13.03.2013 is

concerned, though the same has been issued by Chief Medical & Health Officer, Pali- a competent authority, but, the same is not counter signed.

Moving on to the subsequent certificate dated 23.01.2018, produced by the petitioner; a look thereat reveals that the same has been issued by

Block Chief Medical Officer, Jaitaran, who is not competent to issue a certificate as per Clause 7(ii) of the advertisement.

In this view of the matter, the later certificate dated 23.01.2018, which has been produced by the petitioner, turns out to be issued by an authority

not competent to issue the same; whereas the earlier certificate dated 13.03.2013, though issued by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, but is not

counter signed/verified by the Joint Director of the Medical & Health Department. Hence, the certificates in question cannot be claimed to be in

conformity with the terms of the advertisement.

Adverting to the argument of Mr. Choudhary, that the counter signature/verification of the certificate issued by a competent authority is only a

procedural formality and if a candidate is found entitled for bonus marks, his/her entitlement should not be denied merely because the same is not

counter signed; cannot be accepted/countenanced by this Court. If the advertisement prescribes format or proforma with further stipulation of

authentication, a candidate has to follow it.

Judgment of this Court in the case of Karni Singh (supra), at the first flush appears to be supporting petitioner’s cause, but a careful appraisal

of facts of the said case clearly brings to fore, striking difference- in case of Karni Singh, the petitioner therein did not claim bonus marks and he had

placed the certificate in a bid to evince his experience, which was a requirement of the advertisement. Thus comparing Clause 6 & 8 of the

advertisement dated 10.05.2013, this Court held that Clause-6, which prescribed the eligibility conditions postulated one year’s experience without

making any reference of certificate or particular thereof. It will not be out of context to refer to the following excerpts of the judgment to examine the

factual difference:-

“A comparison of the eligibility condition mentioned in Clause-6 of the advertisement and the stipulation contained in Clause-8 thereof reveals that

Clause-6 which prescribes the eligibility condition, postulates experience of one year, without making any reference of the certificate or other

particulars thereof. However Clause-8 which relate to awarding of bonus marks prescribes the format of experience certificate and the specifies the

Competent Authority. It may be true that the experience certificate in question is not issued by the Chief Medical & Health Officer (CMHO), but

such lapse may be relevant and can be considered while awarding bonus marks.

Since the petitioner is not claiming any bonus marks, and he has relied upon the same to show his eligibility, his rights cannot be denied because his

certificate has not been issued by the Competent Authority. For some lacuna in the certificate, the respondents cannot dispute petitioner’s very

eligibility.

In considered opinion of this Court, conditions of eligibility mentioned in Clause-6 are entirely different than the conditions of awarding bonus marks.

The certificate dated 29.07.2013 clearly evinces petitioner’s experience of one year, hence the petitioner is eligible and entitled for claiming

appointment on the post of Lab Assistant.â€​

In light of the above, judgment in the case of Karni Singh (supra) hardly lends any support to the petitioner; as against this, I find myself bound by

the judgment dated 16.01.2018 of Coordinate Bench in the case of Kavita Panwar (Supra) which has been duly affirmed by Division Bench, vide

judgment dated 07.03.2019 in D.B. Spl. Appeal Writ No.1660/2018.

In light of the above, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner was required to produce a certificate in prescribed format

“ ( )†and sans such certificate, her claim of bonus marks could not be entertained. Petitioner’s claim, thus, was rightly rejected by

the respondents.

There is no force and substance in petitioner’s contention. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

Stay application is also dismissed.