Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Yogita Kumari D/O Shri Jagdish Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 October, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12658/2020
1. Yogita Kumari D/o Shri Jagdish Chandra, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of Shahpur, District Alwar (Raj.)
2. Dheeraj Saini Son Of Shri Deep Chand, Resident Of D-78,
Vidhan Sabha Nagar, Dholai Mansarovar, District Jaipur
(Raj.)
3. Shadab Husain S/o Shri Jakir Husain, Resident Of Maliyo
Ka Mohalla, Malpura, Dist. Tonk (Raj.)
4. Rahul Kumar Bairwa S/o Shri Ounkar Prasad Bairwa,
Resident Of V/p Pratappura, Dhani Gola, District Dausa
(Raj.)
5. Asif Ali S/o Shri Shabbeer Ahmed, Resident Of Kumaharo
Ki Gali Mohalla, Sadat Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.)
6. Praveen Chand Upadhyay Son Of Shri Satya Prakash
Upadhyay, Resident Of V/p Katked Gumanpura, Tehsil
Hindauncity, District Karauli (Raj.)
7. Sanju Kumari D/o Shri Nemaram, Resident Of Vill
Pabupura Post Dhankoli, Tehsil Deedwana, District Nagaur
(Raj.)
8. Devraj Prajapat Son Of Ramkishan Prajapat, Resident Of
V/p Tillanju Tehsil Malpura, Tonk (Raj.)
9. Naresh Kumar Gurjar S/o Shri Hardyan Gurjar, Resident
Of Vill Meerapur Post Gunta Teh Bansur, District Alwar
(Raj.)
10. Emi Chand S/o Shri Dungar Ram, Resident Of Vill
Gopalsar Post Birmana, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Shri
Ganganagar (Raj.)
11. Kedar Jat Son Of Shri Panna Lal Jat, Resident Of V/p
Sohela Teh Peeplu District Tonk (Raj.)
12. Rajkumari D/o Shri Mewa Ram, Resident Of Village Rad Ki
Dhani, Post Mundiyawas, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District
Sikar (Raj.)
13. Uday Singh Son Of Shri Dhanpal Singh, Resident Of
Village Peeranagar, Post Gawdi, Tehsil And District
Bharatpur (Raj.)
14. Sonu Kumar Jangid Son Of Shri Pappu Lal Jangid,
Resident Of Vill Shreepura Post Taranpur, Tehsil Malarana
(Downloaded on 22/10/2020 at 10:35:23 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-12658/2020]
Dungar, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)
15. Sarita Kumari D/o Shri Kamal Singh, Resident Of Vill
Gadhla Kala, Via Ponkh, Tehsil Udaipurwati, Jhunjhunu
(Raj.)
16. Ravi Prakash Sharma Son Of Shri Prabhu Narayan
Sharma, Resident Of Mahal Near Gyan Vihar Collage,
Jagatpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)
17. Rinku Dhankhar D/o Shri Subash Chandra, Resident Of V/
p Kithana, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
18. Rameez Khan Son Of Shri Mohammad Raees, Resident Of
Badshahu Ka Mohalla Near Of Jain Mandir, Nagar Fort
Tehsil Duni, District Tonk (Raj.)
19. Ram Narayan Bairwa Son Of Shri Juwana Bairwa,
Resident Of Village Badla Post Maleda, Tehsil Deoli,
District Tonk (Raj.)
20. Himanshu Mishra Son Of Shri Rishi Kumar Mishra,
Resident Of Mishra Mohalla, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa
(Raj.)
21. Lalita Kumari D/o Brijmohan Meena, Residenece Of V/p
Barwasi, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
22. Rajesh Sharma S/o Yadram Sharma, Residence Of 114,
Pujaariyo Ki Dhani, Bahadkho, Salimpur, District Dausa
(Raj.)
23. Gaurav Kumar S/o Shri Gujar Mal Kirad, Residence Of
Kathoomar, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Special Secretary,
Medical Health And Family Welfare Department, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director, National Health Mission, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Additional Director (Administration), Department Of
Medical And Health Service, Rajasthan, Medical
Directorate, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Principal, S.m.s. Medical College, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Administrative Officer, Metro Manas Arogya Sadan Heart
Care And Multispeciality Hospital, Shipra Path, Near
Technology Park, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 22/10/2020 at 10:35:23 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-12658/2020]
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.L. Sharma For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 22/10/2020 This court in the identical matter i.e. SBCWP No.12281/2020 titled as Nirmal Singh & Others Versus State of Rajasthan & Others decided on 13.10.2020 has passed the following order:-
"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 respondent in not awarding of bonus marks for length of the service to the petitioner. The post advertised is of Community Health Officer 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 granting 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 petitioners, 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 (Downloaded on 22/10/2020 at 10:35:23 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-12658/2020] 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 candidate) 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 availing 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 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."
In the present case also, the same prayer has been made by the petitioners. In view thereof, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Sunil Solanki/55 (Downloaded on 22/10/2020 at 10:35:23 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)