ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Town Planner pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.08.2021 (Annex.3) w.e.f. 08.10.2021 (Annex.8) with all consequential benefits. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner attained the degree of Engineering in Architecture in the year 2007 and served as Assistant Town Planner with Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur (‘JDA, Jodhpur’) w.e.f. 01.06.2013 to 26.5.2014 and also served with a private institution w.e.f. 01.06.2007 to 24.01.2011. 3. The respondents issued advertisement dated 10.8.2021 (Annex.3) for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Town Planner. The educational qualification and experience inter alia required for the said post and relevant for the present petition was ‘Bachelor’s Degree in Planning / Architecture from a recognized Institute / University established by law in India with two years’ experience in the field of Town Planning’. 4. The petitioner being eligible applied in the category of EWS as out of 39 posts, one post was reserved for EWS (Female) category. The petitioner after undergoing the written test, in the result declared on 25.9.2021 (Annex.5), was selected and called for document verification. During course of document verification, the petitioner filled up the requisite form and submitted the documents as required. After the document verification, the final select list was issued by the respondents on 04.10.2021 (Annex.7), however, the name of the petitioner has not appeared in the said list and in the category of EWS (Female), no one was available to be accorded appointment. 5. Subsequently, on 08.10.2021 (Annex.8), appointments to the selected candidates were accorded. The petitioner made a representation (Annex.9), however, no response was received. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. 7. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that action of the respondents in not according appointment to the petitioner under EWS (Female) category is not justified as the petitioner has passed the requisite written test and had submitted the requisite EWS certificate along with her experience certificates also, however, without disclosing any reason, the petitioner has been deprived of the selection. 8. It was submitted that initially no response was given. 8. It was submitted that initially no response was given. However, in reply to the writ petition, it was disclosed that there was no experience certificate of the petitioner indicating the experience in Town Planning for two years or more and that even if the work executed by the petitioner at JDA, Jodhpur is taken into consideration, the same was only for 11 months and that the experience of the petitioner with M/s Rajiv Goel Associates cannot be taken into consideration and as the petitioner is ineligible on account of lack of experience in the field of Town Planning, she has not been accorded appointment. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in this regard is wholly incorrect. 9. With reference to the certificate issued by Rajiv Goel Associates, submissions have been made that the work undertaken by the petitioner falls within the requirement of the advertisement i.e. in the field of Town Planning. It is submitted that the respondents are taking a very narrow view of the required experience, which is not justified and as such the action of the respondents deserves to be set aside. 10. Further submissions were made with reference to the material filed along with affidavit (Annex.10) that the work executed by the petitioner, clearly falls within the requisite parameters and, therefore, the respondents be directed to accord appointment to the petitioner by accepting her experience as required. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has been disqualified on account of lack of requisite experience in the field of Town Planning. With reference to the certificate issued by Rajiv Goel Associates, it was submitted that a bare look at the said certificate would reveal that the same nowhere indicates the petitioner’s experience ‘in Town Planning’ and that the experience gained by her as reflected in the certificate, cannot be taken as experience ‘in the field of Town Planning' and, therefore, the petitioner’s candidature has been rightly rejected and the petition also deserves dismissal. 12. During course of the present petition, by order dated 04.01.2022, counsel for the parties and more specifically respondent was directed to produce the parameters for judging the experience ‘in the field of Town Planning’ as required by the advertisement. However, though the petitioner has produced material by way of additional affidavit (Annex.10), the respondents have not produced any material, whatsoever, in this regard. 13. However, though the petitioner has produced material by way of additional affidavit (Annex.10), the respondents have not produced any material, whatsoever, in this regard. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. The advertisement dated 10.8.2021 inter alia requires the following educational qualification and experience for the post of Assistant Town Planner : “Bachelor’s Degree in Planning / Architecture from a recognized Institute / University established by law in India with two years’ experience in the field of Town Planning.” 15. A perusal of the above would reveal that, insofar as, the qualification is concerned, the same is Bachelor’s Degree in Planning / Architecture from a recognized Institute / University established by law in India and the candidate is required to have two years’ experience ‘in the filed of Town Planning’. 16. The above requirement of experience was introduced vide notification dated 9.7.2021, whereby, the Rajasthan Municipal (Administrative and Technical) Service Rules, 1963 were amended. The validity of the amendment requiring the experience of two years’ in the filed of Town Planning has been upheld by Division Bench in Manisha Damachya v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9607/2021, decided on 09.09.2021 at Jaipur Bench. 17. So far as the present case is concerned, there is no dispute about the petitioner being educationally qualified for the post of Assistant Town Planner. The only dispute is as to whether she has two years’ experience in the field of Town Planning. 18. The certificate produced by the petitioner of having worked with one M/s Rajiv Goel Associates dated 1st July, 2011 (Annex.2) reads as under:- “TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN. This is to certify that Ms. PREM KANWAR INDA has worked in our firm from 01.06.2007 to 24.01.2011. During the above period, she worked on concept drawing, sanction drawings, design development, presentation drawings, working drarwings & details for the following projects in a responsible capacity: High Rate Commercial Building in Jeddah. Service Apartments in China Ms PREM KANWAR INDA has demonstrated good working ability on design details and can comprehend large scale projects. We have found her dedicated, sincere & hardworking on her assignments. She has been a cooperative design team member with good CAD works and keen eye for detail. She has the potential of being a sensitive Architect. Service Apartments in China Ms PREM KANWAR INDA has demonstrated good working ability on design details and can comprehend large scale projects. We have found her dedicated, sincere & hardworking on her assignments. She has been a cooperative design team member with good CAD works and keen eye for detail. She has the potential of being a sensitive Architect. We wish her all the best in all her future endeavours as an architect.” 19. A perusal of the above certificate would reveal that the petitioner had worked with firm from 01.06.2007 to 24.01.2011 on concept drawing, sanction drawings, design development, presentation drawings, working drawings and details for the high rise commercial building in Jeddah and service apartments in China in a responsible capacity. While the petitioner claims that the said experience would make her eligible for the post of Assistant Town Planner as required, the respondents have denied the same. 20. Despite specific direction of the Court, the respondents have failed to produce any material and/or parameters, by which the respondents have evaluated the experience of the candidates in terms of the advertisement ‘in the field of town planning’, so as to provide a touchstone for the Court to examine the validity of rejection of petitioner’s candidature. The only indication made in the reply to the writ petition is that the petitioner has not worked with Rajiv Goel Associates as a Town Planner and that the document verification of the petitioner revealed her in-experience in the field of Town Planning and that due to lack of experience, the petitioner was not accorded appointment. 21. There is no indication in the reply as to why the experience gained by the petitioner with Rajiv Goel Associates cannot qualify for the experience in the field of Town Planning. 22. As the term ‘in the field of Town Planning’ has neither been defined in the Rules nor the same has been elaborated in the advertisement, the requirement has to be determined based on interpretation of the said term ‘in the filed of Town Planning’. 23. The word ‘field’ has inter alia been defined as ‘an area or division of an activity, subject or profession’ in the Webster’s Dictionary. 24. 23. The word ‘field’ has inter alia been defined as ‘an area or division of an activity, subject or profession’ in the Webster’s Dictionary. 24. Further, the term ‘Town Planning’ in COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary has been defined as under:- “Town planning is the planning and design of all the new buildings, roads, and parks in a place in order to make them attractive and convenient for the people who live there.” 25. A combined reading of two definitions would reveal that the experience required in the advertisement is in an area or division of Town Planning, which inter alia includes planning and design of new buildings. 26. The use of words ‘in the field of Town Planning’ instead of ‘in Town Planning’ is significant as the framers of the Rule clearly wanted to provide a broader area of experience for the post in question. 27. The material produced by the petitioner as Annex. 10 inter alia from Wikipedia uses terms Town Planning, City Planning, Urban Planning as inter-changeable and has explained Urban Planning as under:- “Urban planning is an interdisciplinary field that includes civil engineering, architecture, human geography, politics, social science and design sciences. Practitioners of urban planning are concerned with research and analysis, strategic thinking, Engineering architecture, urban design, public consultation, policy recommendations, implementation and management. It is closely related to the filed of urban design and some urban planners provide designs for streets, parks, buildings and other urban area. Urban planners work with the cognate fields of civil engineering, landscape architecture, architecture, and public administration to achieve strategic, policy and sustainability goals. Early urban planners were often members of these cognate fields though today, urban planning is a separate, independent professional discipline. The discipline of urban planning is the broader category that includes different sub-fields such as land-use planning, zoning, economic development, environmental planning, and transportation planning. Creating the plans requires a thorough understanding of penal codes and zonal codes of planning.” (emphasis supplied) 28. In the above extract also, it is apparent that Urban Planning / Town Planning is a vast interdisciplinary field, which includes civil engineering, architecture, human geography, politics, social science and design sciences and the practitioners of urban planning are inter alia concerned with urban design and are closely related to provide designs for streets, parks, buildings and other urban areas. 29. 29. Material has also been produced by the petitioner to claim that even while working as an Assistant Town Planner, experience gained by the petitioner would be very relevant, however, the said aspect cannot be made a subject-matter of the present discussion for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the petitioner. 30. Thus, the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that as the certificate issued by M/s Rajiv Goel Associates does not indicate Town Planning, the petitioner does not fulfill the requirements is essentially seeking a very narrow view of the desired experience different from the requirement of the Rules i.e. in the field of Town Planning. 31. As apparently, the requirement of the advertisement is much broader than what is sought to be argued by the respondents confining the same to the narrow meaning of Town Planning as sought to be suggested, the same cannot be accepted. 32. From the discussion hereinbefore, it is apparent that as the Town Planning in itself includes planning and design of the buildings, roads and parks in a place in order to make them attractive and convenient for the people who live there and the experience required is in the field of Town Planning, in view of the experience gained by the petitioner vide Annex.2 with Rajiv Goel Associates indicating having worked on high rise commercial buildings and service apartments, it cannot be said that the same would not qualify for the required experience ‘in the field of Town Planning’. 33. As such, the narrow meaning given by the respondents to the phrase ‘in the field of Town Planning’ and excluding the work done by the petitioner from its purview for the purpose of eligibility, cannot be countenanced. 34. In view of the above discussion, as it is apparent that the respondents have failed to produce any material, which was used / parameters applied by them while determining the eligibility of the candidates for recruitment to the post of Assistant Town Planner in relation to their experience in the filed of Town Planning, the determination made hereinbefore, clearly projects that the experience gained by the petitioner with Rajiv Goel Associates (Annex.2) would fall within the requirement of experience ‘in the field of Town Planning’ and, therefore, the action of the respondents in cancelling the candidature of the petitioner, for alleged lack of experience, cannot be sustained. 35. 35. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The cancellation of petitioner’s candidature by the respondents for the post of Assistant Town Planner pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.8.2021 is quashed and set aside. 36. As the petitioner has the requisite experience for the post of Assistant Town Planner, the respondents are directed to accord appointment to the petitioner in the category of EWS (Female), which post has remained vacant for lack of any other eligible candidate, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible. 37. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits equivalent to those, who were accorded appointment by order dated 08.10.2021 (Annex.8). However, monetary benefits would be paid to the petitioner from the date of appointment. 38. Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.