Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 469 (RAJ)

Rajnish Kumar Regar v. State of Rajasthan

2020-03-04

DINESH MEHTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in not awarding bonus marks to him, as per the actual experience he has gained. 2. Inviting attention of the Court towards the experience certificate dated 29.06.2018, Mr. V.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that though the certificate was issued on 29.06.2018, the concerned authority has reckoned the period of experience only upto 31.05.2018. 3. It was argued that as a matter of fact, the respondents were required to consider petitioner's experience upto the last date of application form i.e. on 03.07.2018. According to petitioner, he is entitled for consideration of his experience upto 03.07.2018. 4. Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the issued at hand has been decided against the petitioner by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 18.09.2018, in the case of Shanti Lal Dayma v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8751/2018. The operative portion whereof reads thus: 'As laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh (supra) and Alka Ojha (supra), the eligibility based on experience has to be on the last date of submission of the form which in the present case is 30.06.2008 and as admittedly the petitioners did not fulfill the said requirement, they are ineligible for the post of Laboratory Assistant. So far as the challenge laid to the requirement of having experience for the award of bonus marks and provision in the advertisement for counting of the said period till the date of issuance of the advertisement is concerned, the principles regarding indicating of the cut off, as noticed hereinbefore, would apply on all force to the said aspect as well and, therefore, the same also cannot be faulted. Further, providing of the said cut off cannot be said to be arbitrary, inasmuch as, the candidates have to produce the certificate and indicate their experience in the online form and the said date cannot be a floating date and, therefore, the submissions made, questioning the validity of the said requirement, also have no substance. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners and the same are, therefore, dismissed.' 5. Following the judgment in the case of Shanti Lal Dayma (supra), the present writ petition is also dismissed. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners and the same are, therefore, dismissed.' 5. Following the judgment in the case of Shanti Lal Dayma (supra), the present writ petition is also dismissed. 6. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.