ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to issue the experience certificate to the petitioner in view of Clause-7 of the advertisement dated 30.5.2018 (Annex.13) and further a direction to allow the petitioner to join the services as GNM at Community Health Center at Pipar City Jodhpur. 2. During the course of submissions relief has been confined to issue of experience certificate. 3. It is inter alia submitted in the writ petition that an advertisement was issued for appointment on the post of GNM on contractual basis in the year 2007. The petitioner participated in the said selection process and was found eligible in the list of candidates belonging to OBC category. Though, the petitioner had higher marks than the cut-off but the petitioner was not offered appointment, the petitioner approached this Court by filing SBCWP No.3806/2013 seeking a direction to offer him appointment on the post of GNM from the date persons lower in merit were given appointment, which writ petition was dismissed on 17.7.2013. 4. The petitioner preferred SAW No.1035/2013, wherein, by interim order dated 21.5.2015, the respondents were directed to give appointment to the petitioner on provisional basis as per his merit, the petitioner was accorded appointment on 10.7.2015. Whereon, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal by its order dated 5.4.2016 directing the appointment to be effective from the date persons lower in merit to the petitioner were given appointment with notional benefits. The petitioner joined the services on 23.10.2015. 5. It is claimed that as the petitioner suffered serious injuries in an accident, he sought leave, however, the petitioner was not permitted to join back despite requests made by the petitioner. 6. It is then contended in the writ petition that another advertisement dated 30.5.2018 was issued by the respondents for recruitment to the post of Nurse Gr.II for eligible candidates. 7. The petitioner applied vide application dated 28.6.2018, however, for the purpose of getting bonus marks in terms of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (‘the Rules of 1965’), the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents for grant of experience certificate, which was denied. 8. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in denying grant of experience certificate is not justified and is arbitrary and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. 9. 8. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in denying grant of experience certificate is not justified and is arbitrary and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. 9. Submissions have been made that while deciding the Special Appeal filed by the petitioner, it was specifically directed that appointment of the petitioner was required to be treated effective from the date persons less meritorious to the petitioner were appointed and the petitioner was accorded notional benefits and once notional benefits have been directed to be accorded to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for issuance of experience certificate w.e.f. from the year 2010 and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard cannot be justified, the petitioner be accorded experience certificate as per notional experience of the petitioner. 10. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents inter alia indicating that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 21.5.2015 in the Special Appeal, an order dated 10.7.2015 was issued by the respondents directing the petitioner to give joining on or before 20.7.2015, however, the petitioner approached the respondents on 23.10.2015 to give joining, when the CM&HO, Jodhpur, gave posting to the petitioner at Pipar City where the petitioner joined on 28.10.2015, however, the petitioner attended the office at Pipar City only for one day and thereafter he remained absent continuously till 27.11.2016 and kept on sending leave applications. Whereafter, the petitioner re-appeared before the SMO, Pipar City, on 27.1.2017. 11. It is submitted that for the purpose of claiming an experience certificate, the same can be issued on the basis of actual work done by the petitioner, however, the fact remains that the petitioner never worked with the respondents except for one day and as the petitioner does not have any actual experience, he is not entitled for grant of any experience certificate. Based on the above submissions made, it is submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. Further submissions have been made that as per the guidelines issued for the purpose of issuance of experience certificate, the same can only be issued based on actual experience and not on notional experience, which aspect is fortified as it is provided that experience certificate be issued based on payment made to the incumbent. 13. 12. Further submissions have been made that as per the guidelines issued for the purpose of issuance of experience certificate, the same can only be issued based on actual experience and not on notional experience, which aspect is fortified as it is provided that experience certificate be issued based on payment made to the incumbent. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents in denying grant of experience certificate to the petitioner despite the fact that the Division Bench clearly directed that appointment of the petitioner was required to be treated effective from the date persons lower in merit to the petitioner were appointed with notional benefits, is not justified. 14. Submissions have been made that once the direction has been issued by according notional benefits, the petitioner is entitled for getting his experience counted for the purpose. Further submissions have been made that the petitioner suffered only on account of the fact that the respondents did not accord appointment to the petitioner despite being meritorious and as such the Division Bench gave the requisite positive directions, the respondents cannot deprive the petitioner of legitimate consequences despite wrong committed by them and, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. 15. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in Mohammed Imran v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2685/2015, decided on 23.4.2016 and Smt. Sangeeta Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2998/2016, decided on 5.12.2016. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the requirement of experience is actual experience and admittedly the petitioner has only notional experience and, therefore, denial of experience certificate in the circumstances of the case, is justified. 17. It is submitted that the petitioner has worked only for one day after he was accorded contractual engagement under the interim order passed by the Division Bench and, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief from this Court. 18. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in District Basic Education Officer Allahabad v. Sushila Jaisawal : (2018) 16 SCC 506 . 19. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 20. 18. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in District Basic Education Officer Allahabad v. Sushila Jaisawal : (2018) 16 SCC 506 . 19. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 20. The Division Bench while disposing of the Special Appeal filed by the petitioner observed and directed as under :- “Learned counsel for the respondents submits that appointment has already been accorded to the appellant/petitioner as General Nursing & Midwifery (Male) with National Rural Health Mission on 10.07.2015. The appointment given is made absolute. The appointment of the appellant/petitioner is required to be treated effective from the date the persons less meritorious to him were appointed. However, he shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit in actual terms. The respondents, however, are required to fix his pay by granting all notional benefits applicable. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.” 21. The directions are clear, whereby, it was indicated that appointment of the petitioner though given on 10.7.2015 was required to be treated effective from the date persons less meritorious to the petitioner were appointed. It is further directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to monetary benefit in actual terms, however, the respondents were required to fix his pay by granting all notional benefits applicable. The direction for according all notional benefits to the petitioner is explicit. 22. The provision for awarding of bonus marks under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1865, insofar as relevant, reads as under:- “Provided that in case of appointment to the posts other than Pharmacists, which are not in the purview of the Commission, merit shall be prepared by the appointing authority on the basis of marks obtained in such qualifying academic examination or professional examination or both as specified in the schedule appended to these rules and such bonus marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience on similar work under the Government, National Rural Health Mission and Medi Care Relief Society.” 23. A perusal of the provision would reveal that bonus marks are to be awarded having regard to the length of experience on similar work to a candidate. 24. A perusal of the provision would reveal that bonus marks are to be awarded having regard to the length of experience on similar work to a candidate. 24. In similar nature circumstance when the appointment despite directions given by the Court was not accorded to the petitioner, in the case of Sangeeta Choudhary (supra), this Court ordered for counting the experience of the petitioner therein from the date directions were given by the Court to accord appointment, which was accorded after a passage of over 02 years 05 months. In the present case, the directions of the Division Bench are explicit and the case of the petitioner stands on a better footing. 25. It is no doubt true that the petitioner had actually worked for a day only, which aspect is admitted by the petitioner, the fact that denial of appointment took place despite merit took place at the time of earlier recruitment for no fault of the petitioner and directions were given by the Division Bench for grant of notional benefits, the petitioner cannot be deprived of grant of certificate on the ground that after appointment the petitioner had worked for one day only with the respondents. 26. Insofar as, the judgment in the case of Sushila Jaisawal (supra) is concerned, the same pertains to entitlement to arrears, wherein, it was held that the respondent therein were not entitled to grant of arrears. In the present case, the Division Bench has denied grant of arrears and, therefore, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. 27. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant experience certificate to the petitioner from the date persons less meritorious to the petitioner were accorded appointment pursuant to the recruitment held in the year 2010 till the date of joining by the petitioner pursuant to the order of appointment dated 10.7.2015. 28. Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. 29. No order as to costs.