Santosh Choudhary vs State of Rajasthan And Ors

This intra-Court appeal is directed against order dated 25.2.20 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the action of the respondents in refusing to award bonus marks to her for the experience acquired as Nurse Gr.II under the NRHM Scheme, has been dismissed.

Pursuant to advertisement dated 30.5.18 issued by the respondents for recruitment to the post of Nurse Gr.II in Non TSP Area, the appellant made on-line application. She claimed bonus marks on the basis of her experience as Nurse Gr.II/Staff Nurse.

The appellant produced two experience certificates dated 13.03.2013 and 23.01.2018; first issued by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Pali and the second by Block Chief Medical Officer, Jaitaran. The appellant claimed the experience of working as Nurse Gr.II/Staff Nurse for the period from 26.06.2007 to 23.01.2018.

The appellant was denied bonus marks on the strength of the certificates produced as aforesaid, for the reasons that the certificates issued were not in prescribed form. The certificates were not counter signed by the Joint Director, Medical & Health. The certificate dated 23.01.2018 was not otherwise valid inasmuch as, the same was issued by Block Chief Medical Officer, Jaitaran, who was not competent to issue the certificate.

As per the conditions specified for award of bonus marks for experience in the advertisement, the certificate was required to be in the prescribed format i.e. proforma 'A' appended to the advertisement. Further, as per Clause 8 of the advertisement, the certificate issued by Chief Medical & Health Officer or other competent authority was required to be counter signed/verified by Joint Director, Medical & Health of concerned zone.

The learned Single Judge after due consideration of the material on record arrived at the finding that the certificate dated 13.03.2013 furnished by the appellant though issued by Chief Medical & Health Officer was not counter signed by the Joint Director and the certificate dated 23.01.2018 was issued by Block Chief Medical Officer, Jaitaran, who is not the competent authority as per Clause 7(ii) of the advertisement. The learned Single Judge opined that if the advertisement prescribes format or proforma with further stipulation of authentication, a candidate has to follow it. Relying upon a Bench decision of this Court dated 16.01.2018 in the matter of Kavita Panwar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B.Special Appeal Writ No.1660/2018, the learned Single Judge opined that the certificates produced by the appellant being not in conformity with the conditions of the advertisement, the appellant's claim for bonus marks was rightly rejected by the respondents.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant while reiterating the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge contended that the certificates produced contained all requisite information and the factum of the appellant being in employment under NRHM for the period specified, cannot be disputed. Learned counsel submitted that the claim of the bonus marks is dependent upon the experience gained by a candidate under various notified/specified schemes of the Government and since the contractual employment of the appellant is not in dispute, the requirement of counter signature on the certificates was a mere formality and thus, the bonus marks could not have been denied to the appellant for want of counter signature. Learned counsel urged that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in relying upon the Bench decision of this Court in Kavita's case (supra) inasmuch as, in the said matter, the appellant therein had produced the certificate issued by private placement agency and not by the competent Government authority and thus, the said decision of this Court was apparently distinguishable on facts. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant's legitimate claim for bonus marks cannot be denied on account of the procedural lapse in not obtaining the counter signature of the competent authority on the certificates produced.

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.

A bare look at the advertisement makes it abundantly clear that for award of bonus marks towards experience, a candidate was required to produce the certificates issued by the authorised officer in the proforma specified. The proforma specified was appended to the advertisement itself. It is not disputed before us that the certificates produced by the appellant were not in prescribed proforma. Further, as per Clause 8 of the advertisement, the certificate issued by the authorised officer was required to be verified by Joint Director of the concerned zone. Admittedly, the first certificate dated 13.03.2013 though issued by the competent officer i.e. Chief Medical & Health Officer, Pali, was not counter signed by the Joint Director. The certificate dated 23.01.2018 was issued by the Block Chief Medical Officer, Jaitaran, who was not even competent to issue the certificate and the same was also not counter signed/verified by the Joint Director of concerned zone. In this view of the matter, the action of the respondents in denying the bonus marks to the appellant on the basis of the certificates produced cannot be faulted with.

It goes without saying that the conditions specified in the advertisement so as to make a candidate entitled for award of bonus marks towards the experience were required to be satisfied strictly. Obviously, there might be many more persons, who were denied bonus marks on account of the certificates produced being not in conformity with the conditions specified. Merely because, the appellant has approached this Court raising the grievance in this regard, the conditions incorporated in the advertisement cannot be directed to be relaxed qua her. We are of the considered opinion that so as to ensure the fairness and transparency in the selection process, it is absolutely necessary that the conditions specified in the advertisement for award of bonus marks are strictly followed.

In view of the discussion above, even if the Bench decision of this Court in Kavita's case (supra) is not squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, the appellant is not entitled for the relief claimed and thus, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of intra-Court appeal jurisdiction.

The appeal is therefore, dismissed.