Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1571 (RAJ)

Mukesh Kumar Saini v. State of Rajasthan

2019-05-20

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner eligible on the basis of experience certificates Annexures-4, 5 and 10, to countersign the experience certificate as required and provide him appointment to the post of LDC pursuant to the Recruitment, 2013, if he is otherwise found eligible. 2. The petitioner, who was working in the NRHM Project, applied pursuant to the Recruitment, 2013 for the post of LDC. Initially for those who were working with the NRHM Project, they were not found eligible for award of bonus marks in terms of advertisement, which led to litigation by way of filing certain writ petitions, wherein, interim orders were passed, whereafter the State issued Circulars dated 26.05.2017 and 30.05.2017 (Annexures-7 & 9) recognizing that those, who had worked with NRHM Scheme, would be entitled for award of bonus marks. 3. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner pressed for consideration of his experience based on the certificates Annexures-4 and 5. However, it is claimed that petitioner was told to produce certificate in appropriate format. The petitioner obtained certificate in appropriate format Annexure-8 and produced the same, which was not counter signed by the respondents. The petitioner approached Bench of this Court at Jaipur by filing S.B.C.W.P. No. 21072/2018 wherein the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the department qua his grievance. 4. Pursuant thereto, by impugned order dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure-12) the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected based on a Circular dated 17.08.2017, wherein, it was indicated that candidates were still applying for issue of experience certificates, which has resulted in difficulties in giving finality to the lists and, therefore, those who apply for certificate after 21.08.2017, shall not be issued certificates and as the certificate issued to the petitioner was dated 03.10.2018 i.e. after 21.08.2017, the petitioner was not entitled for counter sign. 5. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was in possession of certificates dated 15.07.2013 and 19.07.2013 (Annexures-4 and 5), however, when after the guidelines dated 26.05.2017 & 30.05.2017 were issued, he was required by the respondents to get the same issued in a proper format, which certificate was issued on 03.10.2018 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the certificate was issued after the cut off date as prescribed by the respondents and, as such, the action of the respondents in refusing to counter sign the certificate issued to the petitioner and consequential relief cannot be sustained. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the action of the respondents submitting that once a Circular was issued and admittedly the certificate dated 03.10.2018 (Annexure-10) was subsequent to date prescribed in the said Circular, the respondents were justified rejecting the representation made by the petitioner and, therefore, no case for interference is made out. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. It is not in dispute that petitioner was issued certificates dated 15.07.2013 and 19.07.2013 (Annexures-4 & 5) indicating experience of having worked with NRHM Project. However, as apparently the respondents sought the certificate in a proper format, wherein, further indication regarding the candidate not involved in any financial wrong doing or indiscipline were also required, the said amended certificate was got issued by the petitioner on 03.10.2018 (Annexure-16) again indicating his experience of having worked with NRHM Project. 9. The Circular which was issued by the respondents apparently pertain to issuance of fresh experience certificates and there is nothing contained therein, where if an amended certificate in proforma for being counter signed was to be issued, the same was also restricted. 10. The petitioner already had certificates, however, the amended certificates in the requisite format was issued beyond the said date, which could not have been the reason for the respondents to deny the counter signing of the said experience certificate of the petitioner, in accordance with law. 11. In view thereof, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 30.08.2018 (Annexure-12) passed by the respondent Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalore is quashed and set aside. 11. In view thereof, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 30.08.2018 (Annexure-12) passed by the respondent Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalore is quashed and set aside. The authority is directed to do the needful with regard to the certificate of the petitioner and petitioner will be entitled to all the consequential reliefs, in accordance with law. 12. Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks.