Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1302 (RAJ)

Naveen Parihar v. State of Rajasthan

2023-07-05

DINESH MEHTA

body2023
ORDER : 1. By way of preferring the present writ petition, the petitioners have raised a grievance that the respondents have wrongly rejected their candidatures. 2. Apropos the petitioners' grievance, facts in brief are that the petitioners vied for the post of Assistant Radiographer pursuant to recruitment notification dated 12.06.2020, issued by the Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Services Selection Board, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Selection Board”). While submitting the application forms, the petitioners claimed bonus marks for having worked with the State Government on contractual basis. 3. Petitioners' names were initially shown in the merit list, but after the document verification, their names were excluded from the final select list, as the experience certificates produced by the petitioners were not in accordance with the prescribed format given in clause (13) of the advertisement under consideration and thus according to the Selection Board the petitioners were not entitled for bonus marks. 4. Mr. Sodha, learned counsel for the petitioners invited Court's attention towards the copies of the certificates that were produced by the petitioners before the Selection Board and submitted that the certificates have been issued by the prescribed authority and all necessary information including the post and period during which the petitioners had worked, had been indicated in the certificate. 5. It was argued by Mr. Sodha that simply because of the technical flaw that the certificates were not in prescribed form, petitioners' claim for bonus marks could not have been rejected. 6. Mr. Vinit Sanadhya, learned counsel for the respondent - Selection Board and Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there was a specific condition in Para No. 13 of the advertisement that a candidate has to furnish his experience certificate in the prescribed format, duly signed by the authority empowered. 7. They argued that simply because the certificates have been signed by the competent authority, the petitioners cannot claim bonus marks. They submitted that on verification of documents, petitioners' claim for bonus marks on the basis of experience certificates produced was rejected, their marks were reduced and merit was changed; hence, the petitioners cannot claim their selection on the post in question. 8. In support of his contention aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Kavita Panwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 8. In support of his contention aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Kavita Panwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5346/2016 and Kaushalya & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4735/2022 and submitted that in light of the judgments rendered by the Coordinate Benches of this Court, the petitioners have no case worth consideration. 9. Mr. Sodha, learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder tried to draw a distinction by submitting that in the case of Kavita Panwar, the certificate produced by the petitioner therein was not even signed by the prescribed authority, whereas in the present case, the certificates produced by the petitioners were duly signed by the prescribed authority. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record and the judgments cited at the bar. 11. A perusal of the contentious certificates produced by the petitioners shows that they were not issued by the competent authority. The certificate have been issued by the Chairman, R.K. Manav Sansthan and counter signed by the Superintendent and Head of the Department of Radio diagnosis Department, P.B. Memorial Hospital, who are not competent officers/authorities to issue the certificates. 12. A look at the certificates produced by the petitioners shows that the honorarium paid to the petitioner, has not been given in the certificates. 13. The bonus marks, as per Rule 19 of the Rules of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1965”) are to be given to a candidate on the basis of period of his contractual engagement under the scheme of the Government. The prescribed certificate proves the validity or authenticity of the claim of the petitioner and shows the period for which the candidate has worked. 14. It is also to be noted that the scheme under which they have worked has also not been mentioned in the certificates. 15. As per Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 the bonus marks are allowed to only those candidates, who have worked under the prescribed/notified schemes of the Government. 16. 14. It is also to be noted that the scheme under which they have worked has also not been mentioned in the certificates. 15. As per Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 the bonus marks are allowed to only those candidates, who have worked under the prescribed/notified schemes of the Government. 16. In absence of the proof of having worked in the notified scheme of the Government and payment of honorarium, a candidate cannot claim for bonus marks, that too without producing a certificate in prescribed form. 17. Hence, in light of the judgments of the Coordinate Benches of this Court rendered in the case of Kavita Panwar (supra) and Kaushalya & Ors. (supra) and the reasons stated herein above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that petitioners' claim for bonus marks is untenable. 18. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 19. Stay petition also stands dismissed.