Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kavita Panwar vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 March, 2019
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1660/2018
Kavita Panwar D/o Late Shri Bihari Singh Panwar, Aged
about 37 years, R/o E-147, Rameshwar Nagar, Basni 1st
Phase, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Medical & Health, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohan Singh Shekhawat for
Mr. Kailash Jangid
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Judgment 07/03/2019
1. The present intra-court appeal has been preferred impugning the order dated 16.01.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge, vide which the appellant's writ petition has been rejected.
(2 of 3) [SAW-1660/2018]
2. The appellant vied for the post of Nurse Grade-II pursuant to advertisement dated 26.2.2013 and claimed bonus marks on the basis of her experience as Nurse Grade-II/Staff Nurse.
3. It is an admitted case of the appellant that she had worked on contract basis, through placement agencies with Jai Narayan Vyas University Health Centre, Jodhpur. Claiming bonus marks, on the basis of various certificates issued by the private placement agencies, the appellant approached this Court. Appellant has also laid challenge to the order dated 31.03.2016, vide which her candidature had been rejected by the respondents.
4. Learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition inter alia observing that the petitioner's experience certificates were not in conformity with the conditions of the advertisement.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.
6. Indisputably, the advertisement under which the petitioner had applied required an experience certificate in the prescribed format and by the prescribed authority. Condition No.8 (iii) of the advertisement unequivocally prescribes the authorities, competent to issue the experience certificate for the purpose of grant of bonus marks while condition No. 8 (iv) postulates that bonus marks will be awarded only on the basis of verification of the certificate granted by the competent authority.
7. It will not be out of place to reproduce concerned Condition No.8 (iii) and (iv) of the advertisement, which runs as follows :-
"(iii) iz/kkukpk;Z esfMdy@ MsUVy dkWyst@ v/kh{kd layXu fpfd-
lewg@ ih,evks@ lh,e,pvks@ mi funs'kd vkS"kf/k ijh{k.k iz;ksx'kkyk@ funs'kd ,e,l;w@ funs'kd vkj-vkj-lh-@ eq[; lkoZ-
(3 of 3) [SAW-1660/2018] fo'ys'kd@ lgdkfjrk foHkkx dk l{ke vf/kdkjh dks muds v/khu dk;Z djus ds vk/kkj ij vuqHko izek.k i= tkjh djus gsrq l{ke vf/kdkjh ekuk tkosxkA ;fn foHkkx }kjk fdlh vU; vf/kdkjh dks Hkh l{ke vf/kdkjh ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS rks mlds }kjk tkjh vuqHko izek.k i= Hkh ekU; gksxkA
(iv) vH;FkhZ }kjk izLrqr izek.k i= dks l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh gksus ds lR;kiu ds i'pkr gh cksul vad@vk;q esa f'kfFkyrk fu;ekuqlkj nh tkosxh ,oa foHkkx }kjk pkgs tkus ij ewy vuqHko izek.k i= izLrqr fd;k tkuk vfuok;Z gksxkA"
8. A bare look at the experience certificates produced by the appellant alongwith her writ petition reveals that the same have been issued by the private placement agencies namely Kishan Seva Samiti, Meghwal Labour Supplier and Sidhi Vinayak Security & Labours Suppliers and not even by the Doctors of the concerned University, much less the authorities mentioned in the advertisement aforesaid.
9. That being the position, we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the appellant was not entitled for claiming bonus marks.
10. The special appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
28-ArunV/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)