ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the petitioner may be granted 30 bonus marks on account of the work experience certificates produced by him for consideration of his candidature on the post of Lab Technician. 3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that the petitioner is holding the qualification of Senior Secondary along with two years’ Diploma Course in Medical Laboratory Technology. The petitioner, being fully eligible for the post of Lab Technician, applied in pursuance of the notification/advertisement issued by the State Government on 31.05.2023 for appointment to the post of Lab Technician. In pursuance of the application preferred by the petitioner, the respondents called him for document verification and after undergoing the process of verification of the documents, the name of the petitioner was reflected in the provisional list prepared by them on 04.10.2023 (Annex.12). Thereafter, a final list of the selected candidates was declared by the respondents on 11.06.2024 (Annex.13) in which the name of the petitioner was not included. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the petitioner has secured 73.683 marks and the cut-off marks declared by the respondents for General Category and OBC category are 59.318 marks and 52.526 marks respectively. Learned counsel further submits that as per the marks secured by the petitioner, he should have been selected in both the categories i.e. General Category as well as the OBC Category. He, therefore, submits that the action of the respondents in denying the appointment to the petitioner on the post of Lab Technician is arbitrary and unreasonable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner performed the work of Lab Technician from 01.08.2019 to 15.04.2022 and certificates to that effect were also issued by the competent authorities, which are placed on record as Annex.-8. Learned counsel submits that another experience certificate of performing the work of Lab Technician from the period of 01.07.2022 to 30.05.2023, issued by the competent authorities, was submitted to the respondents which is also placed on record. He further submits that the petitioner has been registered with the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council on 06.06.2022. Learned counsel submits that another experience certificate of performing the work of Lab Technician from the period of 01.07.2022 to 30.05.2023, issued by the competent authorities, was submitted to the respondents which is also placed on record. He further submits that the petitioner has been registered with the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council on 06.06.2022. Learned counsel submits that despite the petitioner being eligible and holding all the requisite qualifications for appointment on the post of Lab Technician, the same is being denied to him. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed. 6. Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Anita Rajpurohit and Mr. Sher Singh Rathore, Advocates, vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the bonus marks for performing the duties of Lab Technician by the petitioner cannot be granted to him on the ground that while the petitioner was discharging his duties of Lab Technician at that relevant point of time, he was not holding the certificate of registration issued by the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the work done by the petitioner is covered under the Definition 2 (c) of the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2008) wherein, it has been clearly mentioned that a “Para-medical professional” means a person who holds the recognized Para-medical qualification and is registered as such in the Register of Para-medical professionals maintained under this Act. Since the petitioner was not holding the registration under the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council while discharging the duties of Lab Technician, therefore, as per the rules, the certificate issued by the competent authorities cannot be considered a valid certificate as the work of Lab Technician done by the petitioner was without holding the requisite qualification. He further submits that the Act of 2008 also prescribes a prohibition on practice to perform the duties of a Para-medical professional if the conditions mentioned in the Act are not fulfilled and since the petitioner was not holding the requisite registration of Para-medical Council at that relevant point of time, therefore, the work done by him as Lab Technician for the period shown in the certificate cannot be considered for grant of 30 bonus marks. 7. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15214/2023 : Madhav Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 21.11.2023. He also relied upon another judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Airlines & Ors. vs. S. Gopalakrishnan reported in (2001) 2 SCC 362 . He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant records of the case. 9. The respondents vide notification/advertisement dated 31.05.2023 advertised the posts of Lab Technician to be filled in by the eligible candidates. The eligibility criteria and the requisite qualifications were mentioned in detail in the notification/advertisement dated 31.05.2023. For brevity, the qualifications for holding the post of Lab Technician as mentioned in the advertisement are reproduced as under: ^^d½ 1& ySc VSDuhf'k;u in gsrq U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk % I. Senior Secondary in Science with either Biology or Mathematics or its equivalent with Diploma in Medical Lab Technician from an institute recognized by the State Government, Central Government, Rajasthan Para Medical Council. and II. Registered in Rajasthan Para Medical Council. 10. Besides this, in the advertisement it was also mentioned that a candidate will be entitled to certain bonus marks in accordance with the guidelines issued by the State Government vide their order dated 25.04.2023. The order dated 25.04.2023 is produced on record as Annex.-6. A bare perusal of the order dated 25.04.2023 shows that a candidate who has served the respondent Department during the Covid-19 pandemic (starting from 22.03.2020 to 13.02.2022) for a period of less than two years will be entitled for 15 bonus marks, for a period of more than 2 years to less than 3 years will be entitled for 20 marks and for more than 3 years, he will be entitled for 30 bonus marks. Admittedly, the petitioner has served the respondent-Department as Lab technician during the Covid-19 period and to that effect, the experience certificates have been issued by the competent authorities of the respondent-Department to the petitioner. The experience certificates issued by the competent authorities are also not disputed by the respondents. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner has served the respondent-Department as Lab technician during the Covid-19 period and to that effect, the experience certificates have been issued by the competent authorities of the respondent-Department to the petitioner. The experience certificates issued by the competent authorities are also not disputed by the respondents. 11. Since, the experience certificates of the petitioner clearly show that he has performed the work of Lab Technician for more than three years, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner is entitled for 30 bonus marks while considering his candidature for the post of Lab Technician in pursuance of the advertisement/notification dated 31.05.2023. 12. The argument of learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bonus marks on the ground that, while discharging the duties as Lab Technician in the respondent-Department at that relevant point of time, he was not holding the certificate of registration by the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council is noted to be rejected on the ground that the notification/advertisement dated 31.05.2023 neither prescribes nor mandates any condition that only those experience certificates will be considered for grant of bonus marks which have been issued by the respondent authorities for the work done by a candidate after obtaining the certificate of Registration by the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council. The advertisement/notification also does not speak about a condition that only the work experience of a candidate will be considered who has performed the work of Lab Technician or Lab Assistant after obtaining the certificate of registration of the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council. The condition mentioned in the advertisement is that, as of the date on which an application is filed, the candidate must hold requisite qualifications as enumerated in the advertisement including the certificate of registration with the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council. Since the petitioner is meeting both the criteria mentioned therein, therefore, there is no valid reason for the respondents to deny the award of 30 bonus marks on the basis of the certificates of experience produced by him. 13. Since the petitioner is meeting both the criteria mentioned therein, therefore, there is no valid reason for the respondents to deny the award of 30 bonus marks on the basis of the certificates of experience produced by him. 13. The judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Airlines vs. S. Gopalakrishnan (supra), upon which the learned Additional Advocate General relied, is clearly distinguishable from the present case as in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that in addition to the qualification, if the experience is prescribed it would only mean acquiring the experience after obtaining the necessary qualification but not before obtaining such qualification. Whereas, in the present case, there is no column mentioned in the notification/advertisement for any experience viz-a-viz the qualification required for the post of Lab Technician. Similarly, as far as the judgment relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Madhav Singh (supra) is concerned, the same is also clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant 30 bonus marks to the petitioner on the basis of the experience certificate produced by him and after grant of those 30 marks, if the name of the petitioner comes in the merit, he shall be given appointment on the post of Lab Technician advertised vide advertisement dated 31.05.2023, if he is otherwise eligible in all respects. 15. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to all the consequential benefits on notional basis with effect from the date on which his juniors have been given appointment. The order passed shall be complied with by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 16. Stay petition as well as other pending misc. applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.