ORDER : 1. All the three writ petitions involve common question of facts and law and hence, they are being decided by this common order. However, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19260/2022 (Jagdeep Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) are being taken into consideration. 2. The petitioner had applied for the post of Nurse Grade-II pursuant to a recruitment notification dated 03.05.2018 and was accorded appointment by order dated 05.05.2020. 3. In furtherance of the appointment aforesaid, hardly had the petitioner joined than per viam order dated 19.05.2020, the petitioner’s selection/appointment came to be cancelled. 4. The petitioner preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4616/2020, in which vide order dated 22.10.2020, this Court stayed the effect and operation of the above referred order dated 19.05.2020. The said writ petition ultimately came to be allowed by order dated 18.08.2021, order impugned therein (19.05.2020) was quashed while giving the respondents a liberty to pass appropriate order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. The respondents issued a notice to the petitioner on 19.08.2021 and then by way of order dated 09.09.2021 brought the petitioner’s services to an end. 6. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 09.09.2021, the petitioner again filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13964/2021. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court found the notice issued to the petitioner to be inherently laconic and proceeded to pass interim order in petitioner’s favour on 06.10.2021. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on the one hand, the respondents have cancelled petitioner’s appointment and /or terminated his services and have not allowed him to join his duties despite interim order(s) in petitioner’s favour and on the other hand, when the petitioner requested the respondents to issue experience certificate for the period during which he had remained (notionally) in service, they have refused to do the same. 8. According to Mr. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner has remained in service since 05.05.2020 till today, if the interim orders passed by this Court are given their legal effect to. 9. He argued that respondents cannot take advantage of their own inaction, rather stubbornness of not complying with the order of this Court. While submitting that the period since 05.05.2020 till today should be counted towards petitioner’s experience, he prayed that the respondents be directed to issue experience certificate to the petitioner. 9. He argued that respondents cannot take advantage of their own inaction, rather stubbornness of not complying with the order of this Court. While submitting that the period since 05.05.2020 till today should be counted towards petitioner’s experience, he prayed that the respondents be directed to issue experience certificate to the petitioner. 10. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that maybe, the respondents’ action was not upto mark, inasmuch as, they have not permitted the petitioner to join the duties, but the, even if the period during which the petitioner claims to be serving the State is taken into consideration, consequential bonus marks cannot be granted to him because Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Services Rules, 1965 (hereianfter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1965’) contemplates bonus marks to be given to the persons working on contract basis or under urgent temporary basis, whereas, the petitioner was appointed after due process of selection on regular basis against the post advertised/notified by the State. He added that since the petitioner has not worked under any of the schemes of the Government and thus, his purported experience cannot entitle him to bonus marks. 11. Learned counsel submitted that bonus marks can be granted on fulfilling the conditions prescribed/specified by the State Government. He highlighted that not only the terms of the advertisement, even the guidelines issued by the State Government on 15.11.2022 makes it abundantly clear that bonus marks will be given to persons working on the similar posts on temporary basis/contractual basis under various schemes of the State Government being run by the Medical Health Department. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. While observing that attitude/approach of the respondents has been arbitrary and vindictive. This Court records its displeasure, because the State has not allowed the petitioner to join his duties despite interim order passed by this Court in petitioner’s favour. 14. True it is, that the petitioner in any event can claim the experience from 05.05.2020 till today subject ofcourse to deduction of days during which he did not have interim order, but then, he cannot claim bonus marks as he was appointed on regular basis against the sanctioned post of the State Government. 15. 14. True it is, that the petitioner in any event can claim the experience from 05.05.2020 till today subject ofcourse to deduction of days during which he did not have interim order, but then, he cannot claim bonus marks as he was appointed on regular basis against the sanctioned post of the State Government. 15. The spirit of Rule 19 which is evident from perusal of the Rule so also the guidelines dated 15.11.2022 issued by the State Government. The same is clearly indicative of the fact that bonus marks are to be given to the persons who are working on temporary/ ad-hoc basis or on contractual basis or through placement agency under the Government or under any scheme notified by the Government in this regard. 16. The petitioner has admittedly neither worked as contractual employee nor under the scheme of the Government and, as a matter of fact, he is and he has been a Government servant. He cannot claim bonus marks even if he is treated to be in continuous service. 17. With minor changes in dates, the other two writ petitions are also identical on facts and law and hence, all the three captioned writ petitions are hereby dismissed. 18. Needless to observe, that the present adjudication will not come in the way of the petitioners, if they want to challenge the guidelines dated 15.11.2022, which were issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under the Rules of 1965 or the relevant Rule. 19. The stay petition(s) also stand disposed of accordingly.