ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for consideration of her candidature for appointment on the post of Nurse Gr. II pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.2.2013 with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner had applied for the post of Nurse Gr. II on fixed amount pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.7.2003, however, the petitioner was not accorded appointment by the respondents, despite the fact that the petitioner being a member of OBC category had obtained marks higher than the successful general category woman candidate. 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4688/2006 was filed by the petitioner, which writ petition came to be allowed by order dated 10.2.2009, wherein the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Nurse Gr. II from the date candidates junior to the petitioner were appointed. However, the respondents in compliance of judgment dated 10.2.2009 granted appointed to the petitioner by order dated 20.7.2011 (Annex. 3). 4. Whereafter, another advertisement dated 26.2.2013 (Annex. 5) was issued by the respondents for appointment on the post of Nurse Gr. II. 5. The petitioner again applied under the said advertisement. The advertisement provided for grant of bonus marks based on the experience of the candidates and prescribed 10% marks for each completed year of service and maximum 30% marks. When petitioner obtained her experience certificate, she was given experience certificate dated 19.3.2013 (Annex. 6) as having completed one year six months and twenty two days of service counting the same w.e.f. 20.7.2011 when she was accorded appointment. 6. The cut-off marks for appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.2.2013 in the category to which the petitioner belongs was 61.633, however as the petitioner obtained 58.362 marks, she was not accorded appointment. 7. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking bonus marks on account of the inaction of the respondents in not complying with the judgment of this Court dated 10.2.2009, whereby the respondents were directed to accord appointment. It is, inter alia, submitted that if the respondents had granted the petitioner appointment promptly pursuant to the order dated 10.2.2009, petitioner would have acquired requisite experience, however, on account of the wrong committed by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. 8. It is, inter alia, submitted that if the respondents had granted the petitioner appointment promptly pursuant to the order dated 10.2.2009, petitioner would have acquired requisite experience, however, on account of the wrong committed by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. 8. Based on the directions issued by order dated 10.2.2009, it was submitted that though the petitioner is entitled to experience ever since persons junior to the petitioner were appointed, however, even if the same is calculated from the date of order i.e. 10.2.2009, the petitioner would get additional ten marks resulting in her getting more than cut-off marks and, therefore, the action of the respondents in not counting the experience for the period, the petitioner was deprived of appointment on account of respondent's own wrong be set aside. 9. Reliance has been placed on judgments of this Court in Smt. Kamala Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11774/2011, decided on 2.4.2013, Narayan Lal Paliwal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6025/2008, decided on 23.1.2009, Devendra Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9826/2013, decided on 1.10.2013 & Mohammed Imran v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2685/2015, decided on 23.4.2016. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was rightly granted experience certificate for the period she had worked and the fact that the petitioner was given appointment w.e.f. 20.7.2011 being not in dispute, the petitioner cannot claim experience w.e.f. retrospective date. 11. Further submissions were made that the experience as envisaged is the actual experience and not deemed experience. 12. Reliance is placed on judgment in V.B. Prasad v. Manager, P.M.D. Upper Primary School & Ors., 2007 (10) SCC 269 . 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was wrongly denied appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.7.2003, and as such the writ petition filed by the petitioner was accepted by this Court on 10.2.2009 and a direction was given to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for appointment from the date candidates lower in order of merit were appointed. Further the State was granted time to comply with the directions within two months. The directions were not complied with and on filing of S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 35/2010 by the petitioner, the order dated 20.7.2011 was issued by the respondents appointing the petitioner pursuant to the direction dated 10.2.2009. 15. Though the order did not indicate that the petitioner was being accorded appointment from the date persons junior to the petitioner were accorded appointment, however, indication in the order dated 20.7.2011 that the order was passed pursuant to the direction dated 10.2.2009 would necessarily mean that the petitioner was granted appointed w.e.f. the date persons junior in merit to her were accorded appointment. Whereafter when for the purpose of advertisement dated 26.2.2013, the petitioner sought issuance of experience certificate taking the date of appointment as 20.7.2011, the petitioner was granted experience certificate for one year six months and twenty two days resulting in petitioner getting benefit of only five bonus marks. 16. On issuance of the said certificate, the petitioner filed application (Annex. 6A) seeking correct experience certificate based on the directions issued in the writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. order dated 10.2.2009, however, the respondents did not issue a fresh certificate. 17. The fact that petitioner presently falls short by about three marks from the cut-off marks, inasmuch as, she has obtained 58.362 marks and the cut-off is 61.663 marks, is not in dispute. In case, petitioner is granted the bonus marks for the period she was not accorded appointment despite the direction dated 10.2.2009 by this Court, the petitioner would be entitled to higher bonus marks resulting in getting within the cut-off. 18. In case, petitioner is granted the bonus marks for the period she was not accorded appointment despite the direction dated 10.2.2009 by this Court, the petitioner would be entitled to higher bonus marks resulting in getting within the cut-off. 18. Similar circumstances were considered by this Court in case of Kamala Kanwar (supra) wherein the petitioner was removed after granting appointment from the post of Para- Teacher and whereafter once the petition was allowed, she was reinstated belatedly and when sought advantage of the period for which the delay occurred on part of the respondents, this Court held as under: "Indisputably, the petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Para-Teacher on 4.9.2000 and was sent for training and after completion of the training period, she joined her duties on 6.7.2001.Thereafter vide order dated 1.9.01 passed by the District Collector, on the complaint being made by complainant Kamla W/o. Bhanwar Singh, the petitioner's appointment was cancelled and thus she was discontinued from service. It is the common ground between the parties that the order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner stands set aside by this Court vide order dated 4.9.02 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4090/01, which has attained finality. Thus, in terms of the said order, the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement on the post of Para-Teacher with continuity of service, of course, in view of the order dated 17.9.02 passed by the Division Bench setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 4.9.02 to the extent of quashing the complaint filed by Smt. Kamla, the District Collector is free to hold a fresh enquiry into the allegations leveled. But then, since the order terminating the services of the petitioner was set aside by this Court vide order dated 4.9.02 and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service forthwith, and such directions having been not interfered with by the Division Bench of this Court on special appeal being filed by the complainant, the respondents were required to restore the position as it was obtaining on the date of passing of the order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. Had the petitioner been reinstated in service and allowed to resume the duties forthwith, after passing of the order dated 4.9.02 or at least after judgment passed by the Division Bench dated 17.09.02 affirming the order setting aside the cancellation of appointment and directing reinstatement of the petitioner in service with consequential benefits, the petitioner would have acquired the requisite experience, while actually discharging the duties of the said post and thus, would have been saved from entering into this protracted litigation." 19. Similarly in case of Narayan Lal Paliwal (supra) it was held that if there is a break in service on account of reason beyond the control of the petitioner she would be entitled to grant of relief. 20. In the case of Devendra Kumar Sharma (supra), in almost similar circumstances it was held as under: "The question involved herein is as to whether petitioners can be denied benefit of the intervening period after the judgment and till joining for the purpose of experience certificate to get bonus marks. It is in the light of the fact that for the post of Education Assistant, 10 bonus marks for each year's experience is provided with ceiling of 30 marks. The petitioners are those who were not permitted to join for months or, in few cases, for two years or even now. The way respondents have conducted their affairs cannot be appreciated. In any case, due to their default, petitioners cannot be made to suffer. The learned Additional Advocate General is fair enough to state that the court may pass appropriate orders in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the light of the discussion made above, I find that petitioners were not allowed to join the post even after the judgment of this court, for months, in few cases two years and in few cases even now. Accordingly, the period intervening i.e. between the date of judgment of the learned Single Bench till acceptance of joining or if joining has not yet been allowed, till the crucial date given in the advertisement for experience certificate, petitioners would be treated to have gained experience so as to get bonus marks. Accordingly, the period intervening i.e. between the date of judgment of the learned Single Bench till acceptance of joining or if joining has not yet been allowed, till the crucial date given in the advertisement for experience certificate, petitioners would be treated to have gained experience so as to get bonus marks. It would be expected further from the respondents to see that compliance of the judgment of the court is immediately made otherwise a serious view can be taken in this matter also, rather the Principal Secretary of the department was called to find out as to why compliance was not made for years together. No specific clarification has been given by the Secretary, School Education, who is present in the court in place of the Principal Secretary of the department, who is on medical leave." 21. Though in the said order it has been directed that the directions given would not be treated as precedent as the same was given in facts and circumstances of the case, however as in the present case, the facts are identical to the circumstances as indicated in the case of Devendra Kumar Sharma (supra), in spite of the said observations made, the fact that the relief has been granted based on the submissions of the Additional Advocate General, the judgment can be taken note of. 22. In case of Mohammed Imran (supra) pertaining to the same recruitment, wherein the requirement of the experience is within the State, however, during the period when the directions issued by this Court for grant of appointment was not complied with by the respondents and the petitioner therein obtained experience from outside the State, this Court noticing the inaction on part of the respondents in not complying with the directions issued by this Court, directed counting of the experience gained by the petitioner outside the State as experience for the purpose of grant of bonus marks, it was, inter alia, held as under:- "The fact that the petitioner was entitled to be offered contractual appointment as a GNM on contractual basis in recruitment process of 2007 is not disputed. The respondents in the petitioner's earlier writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9450/2008 conceded that the petitioner's name was excluded inadvertently in the selection process. The respondents in the petitioner's earlier writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9450/2008 conceded that the petitioner's name was excluded inadvertently in the selection process. The Court, after considering undisputed facts reached to a conclusion that the candidates having lesser marks than the petitioner were provided appointment in the recruitment process whereas the petitioner was wrongfully denied. Consequently the Court while allowing the writ petition, directed that the petitioner be provided appointment in the recruitment process. In view of the above quoted portion of the order dated 21.11.2012, it cannot be disputed that the appointment of the petitioner in the said selection process has to relate back to the year 2008 by fiction of law. The petitioner is an OBC category candidate hailing from a poor family. In order to earn livelihood and for his very survival, the petitioner was constrained to look elsewhere for source of employment and consequently he sought and was granted appointment as Staff Nurse in Bundelkhand Medical College, Sagar. The only reason for which the petitioner had to look beyond his parent State for source of livelihood is the illegal and arbitrary conduct of the respondents. Had the respondents acted fairly, the petitioner should have been appointed as GNM way back in the year 2008 and thus would have gained 5 years experience by the time the current notification was floated. Thus, the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Jagdish Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) wherein the Division Bench has held the provisions of Rules of 1965 inasmuch as they make a classification in the employees working within the State and those working outside to be justified, has no application to the peculiar and special facts of the present case. Undisputedly, the petitioner was forced to work as a Staff Nurse in Bundelkhand Medical College for three years owing to illegal conduct of the respondents and thus they cannot deny the benefit of such experience while evaluating the petitioner's claim for appointment as Nurse Gr. II in the questioned recruitment process. The experience gained by the petitioner while working as a Staff Nurse at the Bundelkhand Medical College has to be accounted for the purpose of granting bonus marks to the petitioner. II in the questioned recruitment process. The experience gained by the petitioner while working as a Staff Nurse at the Bundelkhand Medical College has to be accounted for the purpose of granting bonus marks to the petitioner. Otherwise also, in view of the above quoted portion of this Court's order dated 21.11.2012 passed in petitioner's earlier writ petition, he is entitled to be given benefit of deemed experience from 4.9.2008 onwards. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to account for the three years experience gained by the petitioner in Bundelkhand Medical College and to extend him benefit of appropriate bonus marks while assessing his candidature for appointment as a Nurse Gr. II in the questioned recruitment process. The exercise as directed above shall be completed within a period of two months. The petitioner if found qualified and meritorious shall be offered appointment as a Nurse Gr. II in the questioned recruitment process. No order as to costs. " 23. The law laid down by this Court in Narayan Lal (supra), Smt. Kamala (supra) and observations made in the case of Devendra Kumar Sharma (supra) as well as Mohd. Imran (supra) squarely apply to the facts of the present case as well and from the date of order of this Court dated 10.02.2009, if the experience of the petitioner is counted, the petitioner would be entitled to 15 bonus marks making her marks 68.362 i.e. well within the cut-off marks. 24. So far as the judgment in the case of V.B. Prasad (supra) is concerned, the facts therein, were not such wherein the directions given by the Court were violated by the respondents and as already noticed hereinbefore, as the direction in the present case i.e. 10.02.2009 was to grant appointment to the petitioner from the date, the persons lower in merit, were granted appointment and the order of appointment dated 20.07.2011 only indicates passing the order in pursuance of order dated 10.02.2009, the necessary result would be that the petitioner was granted appointment w.e.f. the date the persons lower in merit, were accorded appointment and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to higher experience and consequential bonus marks for the said experience. 25. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. 25. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to count experience of the petitioner w.e.f. 10.02.2009 and extend her the benefit of appropriate bonus marks while assessing experience for her appointment as a Nurse Gr. II in the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.02.2013. The exercise as directed above shall be completed within a period of two months. The petitioner if found qualified and meritorious shall be offered appointment as a Nurse Gr. II in the questioned recruitment process with notional consequential benefits. 26. No order as to costs.