ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to issue a fresh experience certificate to the petitioner after adding leave and grant bonus marks after calculation of leave in the experience. Further prayer has been made that the action of the respondents in considering 3 years’ experience qua the professional qualification only and not for award of bonus marks, be declared as arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal and the same be quashed and set aside. 2. The petitioner applied for the post of Lab Assistant pursuant to advertisement dated 29.5.2018. The advertisement inter alia indicated the following educational -professional qualification for eligibility:- “having minimum three years experience of working as Laboratory Assistant/Laboratory Technician in State Government Hospitals on contract basis or through Service Provider Agency, shall also be eligible.” 3. The petitioner is secondary pass and is relying on having 3 years’ experience of working as Laboratory Assistant / Laboratory Technician. 4. The advertisement further provides for award of bonus marks in terms of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (‘the Rules’). The petitioner in his online application inter alia claimed experience from 4.4.2013 to 30.4.2018 as Lab Assistant. 5. The said experience of the petitioner was supported by an experience certificate issued by the Principal Medical officer, Ratangarh dated 25.6.2018 (Annex.5), wherein, it was indicated that petitioner had worked as ‘Assistant Lab Technician’ on contractual basis for the period 4.4.2013 to 30.4.2018 and his period of work was 4 years, 7 months and 13 days. 6. It appears that the experience certificate, which was produced by the petitioner and other candidates led the State to get specific details pertaining to the experience of the candidates and for the said purpose, the respondents issued a Eleven Pointer to various authorities who had issued the experience certificates to indicate the details of the experience gained by the candidates. 7. The experience certificate issued to the petitioner, based on the Eleven Pointer (Annex.4), indicated that petitioner had worked as Lab Technician, and for the period 4.4.2013 to 31.3.2015 he had worked for 586 days, from 1.4.2015 to 30.4.2017 for 568 days and from 1.5.2017 to 30.4.2018 for 288 days. 7. The experience certificate issued to the petitioner, based on the Eleven Pointer (Annex.4), indicated that petitioner had worked as Lab Technician, and for the period 4.4.2013 to 31.3.2015 he had worked for 586 days, from 1.4.2015 to 30.4.2017 for 568 days and from 1.5.2017 to 30.4.2018 for 288 days. Based on the Eleven Pointer, the experience of the petitioner was taken as 3 years 11 months 12 days instead of 4 years 7 months 13 days as indicated in the experience certificate dated 25.6.2018 (Annex.5). 8. The respondents, based on the decision taken in this regard, after deducting 3 years towards the eligibility as indicated in the advertisement, found that as the petitioner’s experience over and above 3 years is less than 1 year, did not award any bonus marks to the petitioner, resulting in, the petitioner having less than the cut-off marks, for which, the interim merit list dated 21.12.2021 (Annex.6) was issued, wherein, for petitioner’s category the cutoff indicated was 46.283, whereas the petitioner had 38.667 as the marks based on his qualification i.e. Secondary. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that action of the respondents in ignoring the certificate dated 25.6.2018 (Annex.5), which indicated an experience of 4 years 7 months 13 days to the petitioner, by seeking further information reducing the same to 3 years 11 months 12 days, is not justified. 10. Submissions have been made that the response to the Eleven Pointer vide Annex.4, for the period 4.4.2013 to 30.4.2018, based on the wages paid to the petitioner, is not justified as the respondents have not taken into consideration the Sundays and Holidays including the leave granted to the petitioner during the said period and once the Sundays, Holidays and leave, are counted for the said period, the petitioner would be attaining the requisite experience and would be entitled to award of bonus marks and would then be in the merit and as such the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be set aside. 11. 11. Further submissions have been made that the action of the respondents in excluding the period counted for the purpose of eligibility for award of bonus marks, is also not justified, inasmuch as, the advertisement only indicates that for the experience gained by the candidates, they would be eligible for award of bonus marks and, in case, the 3 years’ period, which has been deducted for the eligibility, is counted, the petitioner would be within merit and on that count also, the action of the respondents deserves to be set aside. 12. Submissions were also made that once the indication in Eleven Pointed (Annex.4) was made regarding the candidate having worked for particular days, it was required of the respondents to seek further details as to during the period the petitioner had not appeared, what was the reason and whether the petitioner was on sanctioned leave and in absence thereof, the respondents could not have deducted the said period, as in case, the petitioner was on sanctioned leave. On that count also, the action of the respondents deserves to be set aside. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the entire plea sought to be raised by the petitioner is baseless. Submissions have been made that once the documents were filed by the candidates pertaining to the experience gained by them and it was examined by the Recruiting Authority / Agency and it was found that despite the specific requirement of issuance of certificate based on the length of experience, general certificates indicating the period, for which, the candidates had worked, were issued and, therefore, an Eleven Pointer was issued to the authorities, who had issued the certificates, to indicate the status of the candidates regarding the work done by them and the period for which they had worked. 14. Submissions have been made that the petitioner was engaged as a ‘daily wager’ and as he had worked based on daily wages and was paid wages for 586 days, 568 days and 288 days for the period 4.4.2013 to 31.3.2015, 1.4.2015 to 30.4.2017 and 1.5.2017 to 30.4.2018, respectively, he was entitled for getting the experience certificate / get the experience counted for the said period only and not beyond that. 15. 15. Further submissions have been made that insofar as the candidates, who were engaged on contractual basis on monthly wages, in their cases they have been granted the benefit of salary period and holidays for the purpose of counting their experience and as such the petitioner being a daily wager cannot claim the inclusion of the said period for the purpose of experience. 16. Further submissions have been made that insofar as the counting of experience for the eligibility period in terms of the Rules is concerned, the Department has taken a decision that the period, based on which the petitioners who are Secondary pass and on account of the 3 years experience have gained eligibility, the period of experience shall not be counted for the purpose of award of bonus marks so as to maintain the parity with other eligible candidates and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard also has no basis. 17. Submissions were also made that the plea sought to be raised questioning the indication made in the Eleven Pointer (Annex.4), apparently has no basis, as the said certificates have been issued by the competent authority based on the payments made to the petitioner and as such, the plea raised by the petitioner in this regard deserves rejection. 18. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 19. A perusal of the eligibility condition indicates that those candidates, who have Senior Secondary with Science or equivalent and Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology from Institute recognized by the State, are eligible, however, the State on account of the fact that for the first time the recruitment was being held pursuant to the amendment in Rules, candidates having Secondary and either Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology or having experience of 3 years’ working as Laboratory Assistant / Laboratory Technician in the State Government Hospital on contractual basis or Service Provider Agency, were made eligible. 20. 20. Once, in the qualification i.e. Senior Secondary with Science and Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology, exception was provided making those having Secondary and 3 years’ experience as eligible, for the purpose of putting the candidates who were made eligible based on the one time relaxation, at par with the normal eligibility condition, it cannot be said that the State has been unjustified in not counting the eligibility period for the purpose of grant of bonus marks as, in case, the candidates, who have been made eligible based on their experience of 3 years, are also awarded bonus marks for the said period as experience also, they would be put head and shoulder above the other normal eligibile candidates i.e. Senior Secondary with Science and Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology holders, which could in no circumstances, be countenanced, as such the challenge laid to the action of the respondents in not granting bonus marks for the 3 years’ period, which has been used by the petitioner for gaining eligibility, cannot be faulted. 21. Coming to the action of the respondents in seeking further details after the certificates were filed by the petitioners in indicating their experience in terms of the advertisement is concerned, the mere fact that the certificates were issued by the competent authority indicating a particular period of having worked on contract basis, cannot be taken as binding on the Recruiting Authority / Agency and, in case, they had any doubt/objections pertaining to the nature of certificates issued, they could always seek clarification from the authority, which had issued the certificate. As stated by counsel for the respondent that once the certificates of all the candidates seeking award of bonus marks were examined by the authority and the above aspects were revealed, they called upon the authorities, issuing the experience certificates, to respond to an Eleven Pointer requiring further details on the experience gained by the candidates and as noticed in the experience gained by the candidates on various parameters, it was found in certain cases that the experience of the candidates was less then what was indicated in the certificates and as such, the action of the respondents in seeking further information and relying on the same, also cannot be faulted. 22. 22. Coming to the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner regarding not counting of the Sundays and Holidays and the period of leave purportedly granted to them during course of their engagement is concerned, the plea raised essentially is general in nature, inasmuch as, the petitioner himself has not indicated that the deduction made is only qua the said period. A perusal of the Eleven Pointer for the period 1.5.2017 to 30.4.2018 indicates that the petitioner had worked only for 288 days, even if the plea of Sundays is taken into consideration, the petitioner should have worked for minimum for 312 days, there is no explanation for the rest of the gap (43 days) period. 23. Similarly, for the period of 1.4.2015 to 30.4.2017 also, the petitioner has worked for 568 days, which comes to about 284 days in a year and as such, the plea sought to be raised that the experience of the petitioner should have been counted for the entire period irrespective of the fact that the petitioner had worked for particular days, cannot be countenanced. 24. Further, the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents seeking to distinguish the cases of daily wagers from the contractual employees, who were engaged on monthly salary basis, also appears to be justified in the circumstances of the case, wherein, the respondents have claimed that for those who are being paid monthly wages, for them the Sundays have been counted for the purpose of their experience and for the daily wagers, as they were engaged on daily wages, Sundays are not being counted for them. 25. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahipal Lakhera v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2577/2020, decided on 11.1.2021, wherein, when for those being paid monthly salary, were not given the benefit of Sundays and Holidays, came to the following conclusion:- “8. Heard. 9. It is undisputed that the experience certificate duly verified by the competent authority shows that petitioner possesses experience of 3 years, 1 month and 27 days. It is to be noted that petitioner’s employer had made payment on monthly basis and his experience certificate has also been issued on such basis. 10. Heard. 9. It is undisputed that the experience certificate duly verified by the competent authority shows that petitioner possesses experience of 3 years, 1 month and 27 days. It is to be noted that petitioner’s employer had made payment on monthly basis and his experience certificate has also been issued on such basis. 10. In considered opinion of this Court, once the salary is being paid on monthly basis, the petitioner and/or any other employee is required to be treated to have worked for all 30 days in a month, barring exceptional cases. 11. Looking to the nature of job responsibilities, if a person is required to work on lesser number of days in a month, it would be injustice and disrespect to his hard work or peculiarity of job on account of which he is given duties only for 20 days, despite payment being made for 30 days. 12. It can well be understood that since the petitioner’s duty was to be attached with Mobile Medical Van, he was required to work only for 20 days, obviously looking to the onerous nature of the duties. 13. In response to Court’s query, Mr. Mehta admitted that even if a person does not work on Sundays or National Holidays, such days are required to be considered in his experience. If a person despite being assigned duties for 20 days in a month, has been paid salary for the whole month, why would his experience be not of 30 days, particularly when he did not remain absent? 14. The respondents’ action of calculating experience on the basis of duty chart or number of days the petitioner was required to work, is therefore, per-se arbitrary.” (emphasis added) 26. A perusal of the above determination would also reveal that the emphasis is on payment having been being made on monthly basis for the purpose of coming to the conclusion for counting the period of Sundays and Holidays for the purpose of award of bonus marks. 27. Besides the above, despite a specific plea by the respondents in the reply about the petitioner having been engaged on daily wages basis, no rejoinder or any material has been produced to contest the same. 28. 27. Besides the above, despite a specific plea by the respondents in the reply about the petitioner having been engaged on daily wages basis, no rejoinder or any material has been produced to contest the same. 28. The plea raised that the respondents that after the Eleven Pointer was submitted by the authorities, they should have been called upon by the authorities to indicate the reason for the absence of the petitioners for the days indicated in the Eleven Pointer, is baseless, inasmuch as, once the information was received by the respondents, there remains no reason for the respondents to seek further information, inasmuch as, the information submitted was based on the actual payment made to the petitioner. To seek further information, is essentially to keep the recruitment pending forever, inasmuch as, the recruitment even otherwise is already delayed for over 4 years. 29. Besides the above, the Division Bench in Ratan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13131/2018, decided on 5.8.2019, wherein, challenge was laid to the validity of Rule 19 of the Rules providing for award of bonus marks and non-inclusion of certain positions, came to the conclusion that the grant of bonus marks is a benefit, which cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the respondents are within their right to formulate a procedure for award of bonus marks in terms of the Rules, of course the determination made, cannot be arbitrary and discriminatory. 30. In view of the above discussion, as the experience of the petitioner has been rightly calculated by the respondents as 3 years 11 months 12 days and based on the said experience, the petitioner is not entitled for award of bonus marks and the marks obtained by him falls short of the cut-off, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 31. There is no substance in the writ petition. The same is, therefore dismissed.