Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajendra Kumar Saini Son Of Shri Ram ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 October, 2020
(1 of 4) [CW-12321/2020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12321/2020
1. Rajendra Kumar Saini Son Of Shri Ram Narayan Saini,
Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Near Govt. Sen. Sec.
Girls School, Niwai Road, Bonli, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawai
Madhopur (Raj.)
2. Manish Kumar Dixit Son Of Shri Radha Mohan Dixit, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of V.p. Rajor, Tehsil And District
Karauli (Raj.)
3. Pankaj Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Hariom Sharma, Resident
Of Jhina Pada, Sarmathur, District Dholpur (Raj.)
4. Chanchal D/o Shri Rajveer Singh, Resident Of Metro Mass
Hospital, Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur, District Jaipur
(Raj.)
5. Simple Kumari D/o Shri Bansidhar, Resident Of Kyamsar,
Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
6. Suresh Kumar Puniya Son Of Shri Ladhu Ram Puniya,
Resident Of Village Ralawata, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal,
District Jaipur (Raj.)
7. Yogesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Radheshyam Sharma,
Resident Of 42, Jat Ka Mohalla, Dobla, Tehsil Uniara, Dis-
trict Tonk (Raj.)
8. Jitendra Singh Parihar Son Of Bhanwar Singh Parihar,
Resident Of P.n. 19-20, G-2, Shiv Dham-3, Harnathpura,
Niwaru Road, Jhotpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)
9. Laxmi Kumari D/o Shri Lakhpat Singh, Resident Of B-164,
Jawahar Nagar, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
10. Mamta Kumari D/o Shri Mangeja Ram, Resident Of V.p.
Raghunathpura, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu
(Raj.)
11. Mukesh Kumar Bhagat Son Of Shri Nathuram Bhagat,
Resident Of Ward No. 12, Bhagat Colony, Chirawa, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
12. Kripal Singh Bairwa Son Of Shri Ram Lal Bairwa, Resident
Of V.p. Urdian, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli (Raj.)
13. Naresh Kumar Gurjar Son Of Shri Kailash Chand, Resident
Of Village Talwa, Post Dantil, Tehsil Kotputli, District
Jaipur (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 14/10/2020 at 09:14:56 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-12321/2020]
14. Avdesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Mahaveer Prasad
Sharma, Resident Of V.p.danta, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, Dis-
trict Sikar (Raj.)
15. Mukesh D/o Shri Hasanram, Resident Of V.p. Ardawata,
Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Special Secretary, Medi-
cal Health And Family Welfare Department, Govt. Secre-
tariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director, National Health Mission, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Additioal Director (Administration), Department Of Medi-
cal And Health Service, Rajasthan, Medical Directorate,
Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Principal, S.m.s. Medical College, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Adminstrative Officer, Metro Manas Arogya Sadan Heart
Care And Multispecialty Hospital, Shipra Path, Near Tech-
nology Park, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G L Sharma For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 13/10/2020 The petitioner by way of this writ petition, has challenged the action of the respondent in not issuing experience certificate to the petitioner.
Learned counsel submits that experience certificate is required to be issued. This court notices that the petitioner in the main writ petition has also challenged the action of the re- (Downloaded on 14/10/2020 at 09:14:56 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-12321/2020] spondent in not awarding of bonus marks for length of the service to the petitioner. The post advertised is of Community Health Offi- cer under the advertisement dated 31.8.2020 which is a post to be filled up on contract basis for those who possess a particular qualification as laid down therein. There is no provision for grant- ing bonus marks for experience. Thus, learned counsel's demand for issuing of experience certificate has got no meaning as the same is not required for the purpose of moving an application for the post of CHO.
The contention of the petitioner that bonus marks should be awarded for length of service rendered by the petition- ers, is also wholly misconceived as the post of CHO is a separate post and working against the said post or holding another post, would have no nexsus to the post which is advertised. As per the nature of the course, it is seeing that the qualification laid down therein provided under clause-3 as under:-
"3. All candidates have to appear for a screening exam and short listed candidates a. having Certificate in Community Health (CCH)/ B.Sc. in Community Health will be posted on contractual post of CHO in SHC-H & WCs.
b. Who do not have certificate in Community Health (CCH) have to pass the 6 months bridge course successfully.
(i) If candidate is not successful in the Bridge Course in first attempt, he/she shall be given one more opportunity (at the willingness of candi- date) and for this second opportunity the fees and other expenditure of Bridge Course shall be borne by candidate himself/herself.
(ii) If any candidate is not qualified even after avail- ing second opportunity, such candidates shall not be considered for the contractual post of CHO."
Thus the scheme for selection is different from other post and no party can claim nor a candidate can by right claim (Downloaded on 14/10/2020 at 09:14:56 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-12321/2020] that bonus marks should be given to him as the post is not a statutory post but is a purely contractual post.
In view thereof, the writ petition is found to be wholly frivolous and devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J NITIN/53 (Downloaded on 14/10/2020 at 09:14:56 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)