JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to issue experience certificate for his work for the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak for the period from 27.05.2008 to 11.10.2011. 2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner had worked with Gram Panchayat, Bhanisariya (Tej), Panchayat Samiti Sujangarh, District Churu as Gram Rojgar Sahayak. By order dated 05.10.2011 (Annex.6), when on a report made by the Programme Officer-cum-Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Sujangarh, the petitioner was found prima facie guilty of the allegations, his services were terminated with immediate effect. 3. The petitioner claims to have made a representation (Annex.7) against the said termination. 4. The respondents issued an advertisement dated 14.02.2013 for recruitment on the post of LDC. In the said advertisement, pursuant to proviso to Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (the Rules), provision was indicated for awarding marks for experience. 5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner sought issuance of experience certificate from Gram Panchayat, Bhanisariya by making an application on 12.03.2019, however, the certificate has not been issued to the petitioner and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to provisions of proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules that the same provides for issuance of the experience certificate and irrespective of the fact that services of the petitioner were terminated by the Gram Panchayat having been held guilty for the charges, the petitioner is entitled to issuance of experience certificate. 7. Reliance has been placed on judgment in Ramesh Kumar Verma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No. 7372/2013, decided on 06.02.2017 at Jaipur Bench. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposed the submission. It was submitted that the guidelines (Annex.10) and the format of the experience certificate clearly envisage the conduct of the workman during the period for which the experience certificate is issued must be clean and he must not be involved in any kind of financial irregularity, indiscipline etc., however, as admittedly the services of the petitioner were terminated by order Annex.-5 on account of misconduct, he is not entitled for issuance of any certificate. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar Verma (supra) does not take into consideration the guidelines and the nature of certificate which is required to be issued and therefore, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the case, rather the same does not lay down the correct law. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 11. A bare perusal of the material available on record indicates that by order Annex.-6, the petitioner was removed from service with the following order:- ^^vkns'k xzke iapk;r Hkkuhlfj;k rstflagoksrku ds xzkeokfl;ksa }kjk Jh jkeikyflag xzke jkstxkj lgk;d] xzke iapk;r Hkkuhlfj;k rstflagoksrku ds f[kykQ dh x;h f'kdk;r ij dk;Ze vf/kdkjh ,oa fodkl vf/kdkjh iapk;r lfefr lqtkux<+ esa djok;h x;h tkap fjiksVZ ls Jh jkeikyflag dks ÁFke n`"V;k nks"kh ik;k x;k gSA vr% dk;Ze vf/kdkjh ,oa fodkl vf/kdkjh iapk;r lfefr lqtkux<+ dh tkap fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij Jh jkeikyflag xzke jkstxkj lgk;d] xzke iapk;r Hkkuhlfj;k rstflagoksrku dh vuqca/k lsok,sa rqjUr ÁHkko ls lekIr dh tkrh gSA ftyk dk;Ze leUo;d ,oa ftyk dysDVj] pw:A** 12. Apparently, based on the nature of termination order dated 05.10.2011 (Annex.-6), the petitioner is not entitled to be issued experience certificate as envisaged by the guidelines dated 26.12.2012 (Annex.10), wherein the format indicates as under:- ^^vuqHko Áek.k&i= Áekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jh@lqJh@Jherh------------------------iq=@iq=h@iRuh Jh------------------------us fnukad--------------------ls fnukad---------------------rd dqy vof/k----------------o"kZ---------------------ekg------------------fnu----------------fueZy Hkkjr vfHk;ku iwoZ uke VhŒ,lŒlhŒ ds vUrxZr iapk;r lfefr@ftyk ifj"kn--------------------------esa ftyk ifj;kstuk leUo;d ,uŒchŒ,Œ@,lŒMCY;wŒ,lŒ,pŒbZŒ@ys[kkdkj@dEI;wVj lg&,eŒvkbZŒ,lŒ lgk;d@[k.M leUo;d in ij lafonk ds vk/kkj ij dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk vc Hkh mDr in ij dk;Zjr gSA bl vof/k ds nkSjku budk dk;Z larks"ktud jgk gSA buds fo:) vfu;ferrk] xcu ,oa vuq'kklughurk ds dkj.k dksbZ vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZ gS vkSj u gh fopkj/khu gSA buds fo:) lsokjr jgus dh vof/k esa lsok laca/kh dksbZ vkijkf/kd d`R; djus ds dkj.k dksbZ vkijkf/kd Ádj.k U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu ugha gS vkSj u gh bUgsa ,sls fdlh vkijkf/kd d`R; ds fy, fdlh U;k;ky; }kjk ltk nh xbZ gSA** (Emphasis supplied) 13. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in almost identical circumstances in the case of Ramesh Kumar Verma (supra), came to the following conclusion:- "06/02/2017 The issue in the writ petition is with regard to the non issue of experience certificate to the petitioner for the period he worked as a Rojgar Sahayak on contractual basis with the Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department in the Gram Panchayat Dabeta Panchayat Samiti Hindoli, District Bundi. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma appearing for the respondents submits that an experience certificate can only be issued to a person whose service has been found to be satisfactory by the employer. He submitted that the petitioners services were not satisfactory and consequently an experience certificate cannot be issued to him. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma however not been able to satisfy this Court on the basis of any statutory rule or executive order, the non issue of experience certificate which merely records as a matter of fact the period of employment of an employee with the employer. In the circumstances, I am of the considered view that an experience certificate, being a mere statement of fact of the period of employment is liable to be issued when required by the employee. However where necessary the factum of the employees service being unsatisfactory can be recorded therein. It is therefore directed that the experience certificate be issued to the petitioner in the facts obtaining and if warranted the period of his employment being unsatisfactory be also recorded thereunder. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly." (Emphasis supplied) 14. A perusal of the above judgment reveals that when the matter was argued before the Co-ordinate Bench, the executive order i.e. guidelines dated 26.12.2012 (Annex.10) were not produced before the Court and therefore, the Co-ordinate Bench observed that the counsel was not able to satisfy the Court on the basis of any statutory rule or executive order, the non-issuance of experience certificate. However, in the present case, the guidelines dated 26.12.2012 (Annex.10) for issuance of experience certificate have been produced, which are exhaustive in nature and provides for issuance of certificate to only those employees whose work have remained satisfactory. 15. In view thereof, the said judgment which was delivered in absence of the executive order i.e. guidelines dated 26.12.2012 (Annex.10) has no application to the facts of the present case. 16. 15. In view thereof, the said judgment which was delivered in absence of the executive order i.e. guidelines dated 26.12.2012 (Annex.10) has no application to the facts of the present case. 16. A submission was made by learned counsel for the petitioner that proviso to Rule 273 only prescribes issuance of certificate with regard to length of experience and therefore, the necessity of having satisfactory service as required by the guidelines dated 26.12.2012 (Annex.10) is beyond the said rule and therefore, the certificate cannot be denied based on the guidelines. 17. The proviso to Rule 273 of the Rules reads as under:- "Provided also that in case of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of marks obtained in such qualifying academic examination as specified in the schedule I of chapter XII of these rules and such bonus marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience, more than one year, as Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A.), Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine (engaged other than placement agencies), Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Co-ordinator IEC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision in MGNREGA or any post under any scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj." (Emphasis supplied) 18. A bare look at the above provision reveals that the same prescribes for award of bonus marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience. The very fact that such certificate of length of experience is to be utilised for award of bonus marks, which would put the candidate having experience in a better position compared to other candidates, it is always open for the State to prescribe guidelines for issuance of such certificate and the provision therein that experience certificate be issued only based on satisfactory service cannot be said to be unreasonable so as to be ignored and direction be issued for issuance of experience certificate. 19. In view of overall fact situation, wherein admittedly, the services of the petitioner were terminated on account of the enquiry report, which termination was never questioned by the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled for issuance of certificate of experience as per the guidelines issued. 20. 19. In view of overall fact situation, wherein admittedly, the services of the petitioner were terminated on account of the enquiry report, which termination was never questioned by the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled for issuance of certificate of experience as per the guidelines issued. 20. The submission that a certificate in the nature of the certificate as ordered be issued in the case of Ramesh Kumar Verma (supra) may be issued to the petitioner is also without any basis, inasmuch as, the said direction was issued by the Court in absence of the guidelines dated 26.12.2012 (Annex.10) and therefore, the same cannot be used as a precedent. 21. In view of above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.