ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to issue the experience certificate on the post of Lab Assistant, allow him to participate in the selection process held for the post of Lab Assistant pursuant to the advertisement dated 29/5/2018 and if found eligible, accord him appointment with all consequential benefits. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the petition that an advertisement dated 29/5/2018 (Annex.1) came to the issued by the respondents for the post of Laboratory Assistant. The educational and professional eligibility inter alia required the candidates to be secondary or its equivalent and having minimum three years experience of working as Lab Assistant/Lab Technician in State Govt. Hospital on contract basis or through service provider agency. The petitioner applied for the post and inter alia claimed experience based on the certificate issued by the Chief Medical & Health Officer (CMHO) for the period 8/8/2013 to 30/4/2018 as Lab Assistant. However, as the certificate issued to the petitioner on 26/6/2018 (Annex.8) indicated the petitioner as ‘Lab Attendant’, the respondents did not take into consideration the said experience for the purpose of eligibility and apparently the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the certificate issued to the petitioner is apparently incorrect inasmuch as he was accorded contractual appointment through placement agency pursuant to the tender notice dated 19/7/2013, which was issued for the post of Lab Technician and Lab Assistant only. Though the placement agency by its communication dated 26/7/2013 indicated the position of the petitioner as Lab Attendant, the same was immediately rectified on 29/7/2013 (Annex.5) indicating that ‘Lab Attendant’ be read as ‘Lab Assistant’ (Lab Sahayak). The Medical Officer Incharge of Primary Health Centre, Kevalpura, where the petitioner was working, issued certificate dated 8/6/2018 indicating the status of the petitioner as Lab Assistant, which was endorsed by the Block Chief Medical Officer on 13/6/2018, however, the CMHO, Chittorgarh issued the certificate indicating the petitioner as Lab Attendant, based on the original letter of appointment, which had been rectified within three days, based on which the petitioner was sought to be deprived of his eligibility for the post in question. 4. 4. Submissions have been made that as the placement agency was engaged for providing the services of Lab Technician/Lab Assistant vide tender notice dated 19/7/2013, pursuant to which the services of the petitioner were provided and the petitioner performed the duties of Lab Assistant only, the issuance of certificate as Lab Attendant by the CMHO, Chittorgarh based on an incorrect appointment order, ignoring the rectification in this regard, is not justified and, therefore, the respondents be directed to issue a fresh certificate and as the petitioner is eligible for appointment to the post of Lab Assistant along with grant of bonus marks, his candidature be ordered to be considered by the respondents. 5. A reply to the petition has been filed by the respondents inter alia indicating that the certificate annexed along with the writ petition issued by CMHO indicates that the petitioner has worked on the post of Lab Attendant and though many of the candidates in the recruitment were issued certificates with the nomenclature Lab Assistant, however, they had never performed the duties of Lab Assistant, the respondents sought re-verification of the certificates on the basis of 11 pointer sheet prepared by the Directorate, based on which it has been indicated that the petitioner was working on the post of Lab Attendant only and not Lab Assistant and as such the petitioner has been rightly denied the eligibility for the post in question as well as the bonus marks and, therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner in this regard has no substance and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Along with the reply, an 11 pointer verification has been filed as Annex.R/1, wherein, it is indicated that the post of the petitioner was Lab Attendant, as per the payment bill his post was Lab Attendant and work performed by him on the said post pertained to assisting in lab related test, take samples and cleaning of the lab. Whereafter, the payment made to him for 824 days has been indicated for the period 8/8/2013 to 31/3/2016 and similar 11 pointer verification has been issued for the period 1/4/2016 to 30/4/2018. 7. Whereafter, the payment made to him for 824 days has been indicated for the period 8/8/2013 to 31/3/2016 and similar 11 pointer verification has been issued for the period 1/4/2016 to 30/4/2018. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that from the 11 pointer verification it is apparent that the petitioner had performed the duties of Lab Attendant only and, therefore, for lack of requisite experience in terms of the eligibility indicated in the advertisement, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed and as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Submissions have been made that it is for the respondents to decide the essential qualification for appointment to a post and grant of preference in this regard, as employer is best suited to decide the requirement a candidate must possess according to the needs and nature of work and that the Court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4597/2019 decided on 3/5/2019. 9. Further Reliance has been placed on Poonam vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCWP No.14551/2019 decided on 3/9/2019 at Jaipur Bench to indicate that in the said case the Court did not accept the equivalence in the post of Nursing Assistant to that of Nurse Gr.II for the purpose of grant of bonus marks, which required experience on the post of Nurse Gr.II. 10. Reliance has also been placed on Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 404 . 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. The respondents in reply to the writ petition have not specifically denied the fact that the services of the petitioner were made available by the placement agency pursuant to the tender notice dated 19/7/2013 (Annex.3). The said tender notice inter alia indicates the requirement of a Lab Technician and Lab Assistant. The services of the petitioner were lent through communication issued by the placement agency on 26/7/2013 (Annex.4) indicating him as Lab Attendant, however, the same was rectified on 29/7/2013 (Annex.5) by indicating that instead of ‘Lab Attendant’, ‘Lab Assistant’ be read. The said tender notice inter alia indicates the requirement of a Lab Technician and Lab Assistant. The services of the petitioner were lent through communication issued by the placement agency on 26/7/2013 (Annex.4) indicating him as Lab Attendant, however, the same was rectified on 29/7/2013 (Annex.5) by indicating that instead of ‘Lab Attendant’, ‘Lab Assistant’ be read. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner thereafter performed his duties and Medical Officer Incharge issued a certificate dated 8/6/2018 indicating him as Lab Assistant which was also countersigned by Block Chief Medical Officer, Badi Sadri. However, the certificate issued by the CMHO apparently referring to the communication dated 26/7/2013 issued by the placement agency, ignoring the rectification dated 29/7/2013, indicated the status of the petitioner as Lab Attendant and issued experience certificate in terms of the requirement indicated in the advertisement dated 29/5/2018, which was countersigned by the Joint Director, Medical & Health Services, Udaipur. 13. Apparently, the respondents by treating the services of the petitioner as Lab Attendant, did not find him as eligible for the post of Lab Assistant as experience required in terms of the advertisement was on the post of Lab Assistant/Lab Technician. For supporting the issuance of certificate to the petitioner as Lab Attendant reliance has been placed on an 11 pointer verification (Annex.R/1), wherein, the petitioner has been shown as Lab Attendant. 14. Besides the above, much reliance has been placed on the nature of work performed by the petitioner as indicated in Annex.R/1, which reads as under : ^^ySc lEcfU/kr tkapksa esa lg;ksx djuk] lsEiy ysuk o ySc esa lkQ lQkbZ djuk** 15. The indication made are that the petitioner has assisted in the lab related tests, took samples and cleaned the lab. The said work performed by the petitioner, apparently can only be termed as that of Lab Assistant as has been indicated i.e. assisting in the lab related test, taking samples etc. The indication made are that the petitioner has assisted in the lab related tests, took samples and cleaned the lab. The said work performed by the petitioner, apparently can only be termed as that of Lab Assistant as has been indicated i.e. assisting in the lab related test, taking samples etc. Apparently, the indication made in Annex.R/1 that petitioner having worked as Lab Attendant is based on the order, whereby, the services of the petitioner were lent by the placement agency indicating him as Lab Attendant, which apparently cannot be a determining factor in ignorance of the rectification issued by the placement agency dated 29/7/2013 and the experience certificate issued by the Medical Officer Incharge of the Primary Health Centre and countersigned by the Block Medical Officer, Badi Sadri, Chittorgarh (Annex.6). 16. In view thereof, issuance of the certificate and the action of the respondents in relying on the experience certificate issued by the CMHO dated 26/6/2018 which is based on the unamended/unrectified order of placement of petitioner and the indication made in 11 pointer verification (Annex.R/1) cannot be justified. 17. So far as the reliance placed by the respondents on the case of Maharashtra Public Service Commission (supra) and Zahoor Ahmad (supra) is concerned, there is no dispute about the principles laid down therein, however, same have no application to the facts of the present case as there is no dispute regarding the eligibility qualification indicated by the respondents of the candidates having worked as Lab Assistant/Lab Technician, which aspect has not been disputed, the only dispute is the nature of experience certificate which has been issued to the petitioner, as to whether the same is in consonance with the nature of his engagement and the work performed by him, which has been found to be apparently incorrect and in ignorance of the rectified communication of his placement by the placement agency. 18. The judgment in the case of Poonam (supra) also has no application to the facts of the present case, wherein, it was found as a fact that the petitioner therein had worked as Nursing Assistant and, therefore, the same could not be equated with the work of Nurse Gr.II, whereas, the facts as found hereinbefore are different. 19. In view of the above discussion, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. 19. In view of the above discussion, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue a fresh experience certificate to the petitioner in consonance with the discussion made hereinbefore as having worked on the post of Lab Assistant and, thereafter, consider his candidature for the post of Lab Assistant pursuant to the advertisement dated 29/5/2018 (Annex.1) for the purpose of eligibility as well as award of bonus marks and in case the petitioner falls in merit, to accord him appointment accordingly.