Thana Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondent No. 4 to issue experience certificate to the petitioner and further direction to the respondents to consider and award bonus marks based on the relevant experience certificate of the petitioner for the post of Pharmacist.

It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petition that pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.08.2018 (Annexure-1) the petitioner applied for the post of Pharmacist. The advertisement provided for award of bonus marks in terms of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1965 ('Rules of 1965'), wherein, if the candidate had, inter alia, worked under the Medicare Relief Society on similar work, he was entitled to 10 bonus marks for each year with a maximum of 30 marks.

It is, inter alia, claimed that petitioner had worked for Mobile Medical Services ('MMS') under the National Health Mission as Pharmacist, which is reflected from experience certificates (Annexure-3) dated 30.05.2017 for the period 01.02.2017 to 20.05.2017 and dated 06.09.2018 for the period 06.11.2017 to 06.09.2018 and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for issuance of requisite experience certificate from the CM&HO, which was not being issued.

A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents, inter alia, contending that a perusal of the experience certificate dated 30.05.017 indicates that petitioner had worked as Helper and not as Pharmacist and the certificate dated 06.09.2018 indicating petitioner having worked on the post of Pharmacist is incorrect, inasmuch as, as per request for proposal (RFP) for implementation of MMS in Rajasthan, the requirement of staff indicated was that of Helper and there was no post of Pharmacist and, therefore, there was no question of petitioner having worked as Pharmacist and, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of any certificate as having worked as Pharmacist. Alongwith the reply a Project Profile as Annexure-R/1 has been produced.

A rejoinder to the reply has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, relying on Operational Guidelines for Mobile Medical Units issued by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi as (Annexure-6) claiming that the said Operational Guidelines provide for the post of Pharmacist cum Administrative Assistant and further the draft MOU (Annexure-7) also provides for the post of Pharmacist therefore, the claim made by the respondents in this regard is baseless.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

A bare perusal of the certificate produced by the petitioner reveals that the certificate dated 30.05.2017 indicates the experience of the petitioner on the post of Helper (Pharmacist). As to how the two positions i.e. Helper and Pharmacist could be shown as in alternative to each other has not been explained as the positions/work profile of Helper and Pharmacist cannot be compared with each other and/or could be used as an alternative and, therefore, the so called certificate dated 30.05.2017 issued by one Naveen Seva Sansthan is of no avail to the petitioner.

The certificate dated 06.09.2018 has been issued by one Akshansh Consultancy Services Private Limited indicating the petitioner having worked on the post of Pharmacist at MMU/MMV run under the National Health Mission. The Request For Proposal (RFP) produced by the respondents, which was issued by the State calling for submissions of proposal from the service providers indicates the type and number of staff at 5.3.1., where the only position indicated for MMUs/MMVs is that of Helper and there is no mention of any post of Pharmacist.

Once the petitioner has worked under the National Health Mission with the service provider, who in turn has provided service based on RFP, it cannot be said that while the requirement of staff indicated is that of Helper the service provider would provide a Pharmacist and instead of working as a Helper, the petitioner has worked as a Pharmacist.

So far as reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on Operational Guidelines for Mobile Medical Units issued by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Annexure-6) is concerned, the same under Clause 8.1 provides for "suggested HR for an MMU", which indicated position of a Pharmacist and in the MOU Annexure-7 for management of Medical Mobile Unit, inter alia, indicates the position of Pharmacist as well as Helper both in the staffing pattern and, therefore, as the document Annexure-6 only indicated suggested staffing pattern and Annexure-7 clearly indicated the position of Helper and Pharmacist being two different positions, the document Annexures-6 and 7 produced by the petitioner cannot advance the case of the petitioner.

In view of the specific stipulation in RFP, as noticed herienbefore, regarding providing of Helper only, the certificate dated 06.09.2018 also cannot be relied on by the petitioner for seeking benefit of experience as a Pharmacist.

In view of the above discussion, as the two experience certificates produced by the petitioner do not apparently pertain to his having worked as Pharmacist, no direction as sought by the petitioner regarding issuance of experience certificate by the CM&HO can be issued.

Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.