High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 03 RAJ CK 0164

Naresh Kumar Chawla @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 8 March 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 14189 of 2015

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

36 paragraphs · 718 words
1.

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer :-

“1. The impugned provisional merit list dated 25.08.2015 and final l merit list dated 26.11.2015 for appointment on the post of Lab. Asstt.

(Prayogshala Sahayak) may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary, unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2.

The respondents may kindly be directed to includethe names of the petitioners in provisional as well as final merit list and provide the appointment to

the petitioners on the post of La. Asstt. (Prayogshala Sahayak) against the vacant posts.

3.

The respondent may kindly be directed to giveappointment to the petitioner on the post Lab Assitant (Prayogshala Sahayak) if petitioner come in the

merit list.

4.

The respondent may kindly be directed to giveappointment to the petitioner on the post Lab Assistant (Prayogshala Sahayak) if lesser meritorious

from the petitioner has been given appointment.

5.

Any other appropriate order, which deemed fit in thefacts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favout of the petitioner-

defendant.â€​

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner participated for recruitment on the post of Lab Assistant in pursuance of the

advertisement dated 10.07.2013. The Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Services Rules, 1965 entitle the petitioner to have 5

bonus marks for a particular year of experience. The bonus shall not be given for more than three years experience. The petitioner was having

experience in one Rajasthan Government Medical Lab for a period of 3 years, 5 months and 12 days and from the another Lab of Rajasthan

Government Medical he was having 3 years 11 months and 16 days.

3.

Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of it, the petitioner is having a total experience of 7 years, 4 moths and 28 days

from Rajasthan Government Medical Lab at two different places and the same is indicated in the on-line application, which is Annexure -4. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that even if one year is to be deducted from the experience then also the petitioner would be entitled to have bonus

marks on the basis of experience of 6 years, 4 months and 28 days which will entitle him for 15% bonus marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner

further submits that no vacancies are available.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondent has strongly refuted the argument on the ground that though both the experience are mentioned in the on-line

application form but the petitioner himself has mentioned a total experience of 3 years 11 months and 16 days in the said on-line application form and

thus, was not entitled for the total experience from the Government Medical Lab.

5.

However, Learned counsel for the respondents does not refute the fact that from two labs of Rajasthan Medical Government, the petitioner is

having a total experience of 7 years, 4 months and 28 days.

6.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner

was having an experience of 7 years, 4 months and 28 days and even if one year as argued by the counsel for the respondent was to be deducted out

of the total experience then also the petitioner was entitled for 15% bonus marks in lieu of his valid experience of more than 6 years. This Court also

finds that the petitioner was aware citizen and had approached this Court in 2015 itself for seeking appropriate relief from this Court for being

appointed as Lab Assistant in the process concerned. The earlier writ petition which was S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11460/2015 in which the

petitioner stood at serial No.1 was decided by this Hon’ble Court on 21.11.2016.

7.

Thus, there is no reason why the 15% bonus marks should not have been given to the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore allowed in light of the

aforesaid observations. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner on his own eligibility in merit for the appointment on the post of Lab

Assistant in pursuance of the advertisement dated 10.07.2013 and give appropriate appointment to the petitioner as per his merit while counting his

bonus marks to be 15 in number.