Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1938 (RAJ)

Manoj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2022-07-04

REKHA BORANA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rekha Borana, J. - Brief facts of the case are as under: Vide advertisement dated 30.05.2018, applications were invited for recruitment of Nurse Grade-II by the respondent-Department. The said advertisement provided for the grant of bonus marks to the candidates who had already worked under some government project or government medical scheme. Condition No. 8 of the said advertisement also provided that the experience certificate had to be verified by the Joint Director of the relevant zone. As the petitioner was in possession of the old certificate dated 12.02.2015 which was not verified by the Joint Director, he annexed the same with his application form but was not granted bonus marks. Aggrieved against the same the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10600/2019. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 29.08.2019 whereby in light of the case of Jai Pal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9989/2019), the respondents were directed to accord bonus marks to the petitioner based on his experience certificate. It was further directed that if the petitioner was otherwise entitled and fell within the cut-off as declared, his documents may be verified by the respondents and be proceeded accordingly. In pursuance to the order dated 29.08.2019, the petitioner moved representation dated 26.09.2019 firstly for grant of bonus marks and secondly for consideration of his candidature in MBC category. 2. Meanwhile vide circular dated 16.10.2019, it was directed by the state authorities that those candidates who have earlier applied in any other category but belonged to the MBC (Most Backword Class) would now be entitled for reservation and for the purpose, the candidates were permitted to upload the caste certificate i.e. MBC Certificate till 23.10.2019. In pursuance to the said circular, the petitioner uploaded his MBC certificate on 19.10.2019 but when he was not considered against the said category, he preferred the second writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17762/2019. The said writ petition of the petitioner was disposed of with the following observations: "7. Hence, this Court is inclined to accept the stand of the respondents that sans any claim and certificate, bonus marks cannot be allowed. 8. The said writ petition of the petitioner was disposed of with the following observations: "7. Hence, this Court is inclined to accept the stand of the respondents that sans any claim and certificate, bonus marks cannot be allowed. 8. The petitioner may, however, file a representation claiming bonus marks on the basis of experience, he has gained while working under NRHM Scheme, within a period of two weeks from today. 9. In case, any such representation is filed before the respondent No. 3 within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be decided in accordance with law within a period of four weeks. 10. It is, however, made clear that direction to decide petitioner’s representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of his grievance and the same may not be construed to be a direction to decide it in a particular manner. 11. The stay application is also disposed of." 3. In pursuance to the order dated 06.02.2020, the petitioner preferred a representation before the respondent authorities but the same was rejected vide order dated 07.04.2020 against which the present writ petition has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the decision of the first writ petition, the issue pertaining to grant of bonus marks had become final for all purposes and the same could not have been rejected by the respondent authorities. Counsel submitted that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the cut-off for OBC (NCL) category was 56.775% whereas the petitioner obtained only 44.386%. He submitted that the said consideration of the petitioner qua the category of OBC (NCL) was itself invalid as the consideration ought to have been against the MBC category for which the cut-off was 52.817%. Counsel submitted that if he be considered against the MBC category and be granted the bonus of 10 marks, he would definitely fall in the merit list. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that although the first writ petition of the petitioner was allowed in his favour and it was specifically directed that the bonus marks be accorded to him, in the second writ petition, the said issue was reconsidered and the Court did not accept the contention of the petitioner for grant of bonus marks. Counsel submitted that the ground that the petitioner did not even submit the experience certificate in the required format was not raised in the first writ petition but was raised and was considered by the Court in the second writ petition. Therefore, the first order being reconsidered in the second writ petition, the respondents were not under an obligation to grant bonus marks. 6. So far as the issue of consideration of the petitioner in MBC category is concerned, counsel for the respondents did not dispute that vide circular dated 16.10.2019, the date for change of category was extended till 23.10.2019 and the petitioner uploaded his certificate on 19.10.2019. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. A perusal of the order dated 29.08.2019 passed in first writ petition filed by the petitioner (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10600/2019) makes it crystal clear that the same was allowed specifically in light of Jai Pal’s case (supra) and in Jai Pal’s case, there was a specific direction to accord the bonus marks to the petitioner therein based on his experience certificate. The said observation was made with specific finding that those candidates working with 108 Ambulance services would be entitled to bonus marks and non according of bonus marks to the petitioner cannot be sustained. It is an admitted fact that the order dated 29.08.2019 was neither appealed against nor any review was filed against the same. Therefore, the respondents were under an obligation to comply with the said order, however, the same was not done and meanwhile by virtue of circular dated 16.10.2019, the petitioner became entitled to be considered in the MBC category. The fact of consideration of the petitioner in MBC has not been disputed by the respondent-Department also however, it has simply been argued that the change of category was permissible only for those candidates who had fallen in the list for document verification. This contention of the counsel cannot be considered as the circular dated 16.10.2019 does not make any such distinction or differentiation. This contention of the counsel cannot be considered as the circular dated 16.10.2019 does not make any such distinction or differentiation. So far as the ground of respondents that in the second writ petition it was left open for respondent-Department to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner is concerned, this Court is of the clear opinion that once the writ petition had been allowed in favour of the petitioner and a specific direction had been issued for grant of bonus marks to him, the same could not have been negated in garb of liberty granted by this Court in the second writ petition. 9. In view of the above observations, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner in MBC category and further award the bonus marks permissible in terms of the advertisement to the petitioner. If after the said consideration and the said award of bonus marks, the petitioner falls in merit, he be afforded appointment.