ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the experience certificate produced by the petitioner may be considered for grant of bonus marks and thereafter, if the petitioner falls in the merit list, he may be given appointment on the post of LDC. 3. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner after completion of his Secondary and Senior Secondary school education, acquired graduation from MDS University, Ajmer in the year 2010. Thereafter, he also obtained an RSCIT Certificate from the University concerned on 03.07.2010. The petitioner had also performed the work of Data Entry Operator on “job basis” in MGNREGA Scheme in the Panchayat Samiti from 15.11.2008 to 30.06.2010. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Computer Operator in MGNREGA Scheme on 01.01.2011. The petitioner applied for the post of LDC in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 2013. The experience certificate which was granted to the petitioner for performing the work on “job basis” from 15.11.2008 to 30.06.2010 was not considered for grant of bonus marks to the petitioner and that is why he has preferred this writ petition with the prayer for considering the certificate issued by the respondents of having performed the job of Computer Data Operator on “job basis” and for allocation of appropriate marks on the basis of the same. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has the experience certificate dated 14.08.2017 of having performed the work of Data Entry Operator on “job basis” from 15.11.2008 to 30.06.2010 and another experience certificate dated 24.04.2013 of having performed the work of Computer Data Operator w.e.f. 01.01.2011 to 31.03.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the experience certificates should have been taken into consideration for allocation of bonus marks in view of Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1996’). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, while preparing the merit list, both the certificates were taken into consideration for grant of bonus marks to the petitioner, however, after document verification, the list of successful candidates was issued for appointment on the post of LDC, but the petitioner’s name was not in the list. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, while preparing the merit list, both the certificates were taken into consideration for grant of bonus marks to the petitioner, however, after document verification, the list of successful candidates was issued for appointment on the post of LDC, but the petitioner’s name was not in the list. On inquiry having been made, it was informed to the petitioner that he is not entitled to the bonus marks for the certificate issued to him on 14.08.2017 on account of the fact that he has performed the duties of Data Entry Operator on “job basis.” Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner performed the work of Computer Data Operator, therefore, the manner in which he was engaged is not relevant. He submits that as per proviso to Rule 273, the words which are of vital importance is the “Length of Experience” which is required to be taken into consideration and since the petitioner has performed the work of Data Entry Operator, the same should have been required to be taken into consideration while allocating the marks of experience. He also submits that merely because the mode of “Engagement” was “job basis” the experience gained by the petitioner on the post of Data Entry Operator cannot be washed away. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in proviso to Rule 273, the kind of engagements have not been mentioned, thus, it will not be of any significance whether the petitioner performed the work of Computer Data Operator on being engaged on “job basis” contract basis or through placement agency. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to consider allocation of marks considering the experience certificate dated 14.08.2017. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mitendra Singh Rathore vs. State of Rajasthan, 2013 (4) RLW (Raj.) 3451. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that as per the condition of the advertisement itself, it is more than clear that the experience certificate of only those persons, who are appointed on contractual basis, will be considered. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that as per the condition of the advertisement itself, it is more than clear that the experience certificate of only those persons, who are appointed on contractual basis, will be considered. He further submits that since the petitioner was not appointed on contractual basis he was engaged only on the “job basis” thus, he is not entitled for grant of bonus marks for the work performed by him on “job basis” as per the experience certificate dated 14.08.2017. Learned counsel also submits that the word “Engagement” has been used in proviso to Rule 273 which clearly goes to show that a person should be engaged by the department in any manner for grant of bonus marks by the respondents but not on “job basis.” 8. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had actually performed the work of Data Entry Operator, but on “job basis.” Learned counsel, therefore, submits that since the petitioner is not meeting with the conditions mentioned in the advertisement as well as the Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996, he is not entitled to get the bonus marks for the experience certificate dated 14.08.2017. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 9. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 10. For brevity, Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 is reproduced hereunder: “Rule 273. Written Test - The Committee may hold a written test for all categories of [post except drivers, Class IV and post specified in clause (iii) of sub-section 2 of the Section 89]. The examination shall be conducted as per directions of the State Govt. (Deleted) D.E.C. will prepare the merit list on such basis: Provided that selections for the various posts shall be made in accordance with the general directions given by the State Government from time to time in this respect. It may not be necessary to call the candidate for interview if so provided in those directions. (Deleted) D.E.C. will prepare the merit list on such basis: Provided that selections for the various posts shall be made in accordance with the general directions given by the State Government from time to time in this respect. It may not be necessary to call the candidate for interview if so provided in those directions. [Proviso Deleted] Provided also that in case of appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of such weightage as may be specified by the State Government for the marks obtained in Senior Secondary or its equivalent examination and such marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience exceeding one year acquired by persons engaged on the post of Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A.) Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Coordinator 1EC, Coordinator Training, Coordinator Supervision, other than through placement agency, in MGNREGA or in any other scheme of the Department of the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State.” 11. The relevant and significant words in the present controversy are “Length of Experience” and “Engaged.” The proviso shows that for appointment to the post of LDC, a person will be entitled to such marks for the experience of the work done by him in the category provided therein. Meaning thereby, a certain marks will be allotted to a person on the “Length of Experience” for the work performed by him. The emphasis is on the experience gained by a person which can be utilized while serving the respondent as LDC. There is a clear nexus and rationality of the same while awarding marks in the selection process of the LDC. 12. In the humble opinion by this Court, the “Engagement” of a person could be in various modes and one of the modes could be the job work basis. The question here is that if a person has acquired the requisite experience of a particular work done by him, then it will be easily termed as a person has been engaged for doing a particular job. The question here is that if a person has acquired the requisite experience of a particular work done by him, then it will be easily termed as a person has been engaged for doing a particular job. The meaning of the word “Engagement” in the proviso to Rule 273 cannot be read in limited manner and if a person is engaged for performing a particular job, may be through the placement agency or contract basis or even job work, will make a person eligible to show that he has performed a particular nature of work. 13. The present controversy is not related to the nature of “Engagement” done by the petitioner at a particular point of time. The important feature in the present case is the experience gained by the petitioner on a particular post for which the certificate had been issued. Therefore, this Court is of the view that even as per Rule 273, if a person has acquired experience of having work of a particular course even on “job basis” he will be entitled to get the bonus marks. A bare perusal of Rule 273 clearly goes to show that the nature of “Engagement” has not been prescribed in the Rule, therefore, it cannot be restricted to mean that only those persons who are employed in the respondent department on contractual basis, will be entitled to get the benefit of the length of experience of serving the department. Even in the present case, the respondents have issued the certificate which is not in dispute that the petitioner has performed the work of Data Entry Operator on job basis and, therefore, the working experience on a particular post is not under the shadow of doubt. 14. Further, this Court in the case of Mitendra Singh Rathore and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2013 (4) RLW (Raj.) 3451 held as under: “17. The experience required under Proviso second of Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996 is on definite posts under definite schemes sponsored by the Panchayati Raj Institutions and under MGNREGA. This too is having a rational as the schemes are required to be implemented with a new vision of development and governance at the grass root level through the Panchayat Raj Institutions as per thrust of the 73rd constitutional amendment and the State enactment made in consonance thereto. This too is having a rational as the schemes are required to be implemented with a new vision of development and governance at the grass root level through the Panchayat Raj Institutions as per thrust of the 73rd constitutional amendment and the State enactment made in consonance thereto. The need of experience hands in service, thus, is rational and required, but the issue deserves consideration is that whether the experience earned on the posts aforesaid in the schemes concerned have any distinction on the count of different mode of employment. It is not in dispute that the main requirement of the statutory weightage is experience on certain posts in definite schemes and not the mode of employment. It is also a position accepted that the experience gained on the posts of Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A.), Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Coordinator IEC, Coordinator Training and Coordinator Supervision in MGNREGA or any other scheme of Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj is same and that does not differ due to mode of employment. The persons employed directly by the Panchayati Raj Institutions or under MGNREGA or through the placement agencies working on the posts aforesaid in MGNREGA or in other schemes of Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj discharge same duties with same responsibilities and liabilities, as such, the experience gained is also same, thus, the experience gained by the persons employed through the placement agencies in no manner can be treated as less or not relevant to have necessary skill, knowledge, insight or any other merit required by Panchayati Raj and Zila Parishad Service.” 15. Therefore, this Court is firmly of the opinion that the experience certificate dated 14.08.2017 issued by the respondent department is required to be taken into consideration for grant of bonus marks to the petitioner. 16. In view of the discussion made above, the present writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the experience certificate dated 14.08.2017 of the petitioner for having performed the work of Data Entry Operator on “job basis” for the purpose of grant of bonus marks. The entire exercise shall be completed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 17. The entire exercise shall be completed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 17. Needless to say that if the petitioner is eligible after the awarding the bonus marks, he shall be offered appointment, if he is otherwise eligible.