Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahipal Lakhera vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 January, 2021
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2577/2020 Mahipal Lakhera S/o Shri Siddharaj Lakhera, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Near Old Bus Stand, Jawal, Tehsil And District Sirohi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Society, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Medical And Health Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Health Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Project Director, National Health Mission, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. MS Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta for
Mr. KS Rajpurohit
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
11/01/2021
1. The petitioner vied for the post of Nurse Grade II pursuant to advertisement dated 30.05.2018.
2. The petitioner has an experience of working as a Nurse Grade II on a Mobile Medical Van with a trust called 'Shri Parmatama Chand Bhandari Charitable Trust, Jodhpur' on contract basis for a period of 3 years, 1 month and 27 days.
3. While submitting his application form, the petitioner claimed 30 bonus marks for such experience.
4. The petitioner did not find his name in the provisional select list and final select list and on enquiry, he was informed that he has been awarded 20 bonus marks in place of 30. (Downloaded on 12/01/2021 at 08:52:48 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-2577/2020]
5. It is the case of the petitioner that if he is/was awarded 30 marks, he would fall in the merit list of his category, cut off whereof is 72.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had worked for more than 3 years and produced a certificate duly issued by competent authority, thus, respondents were not justified in reducing petitioner's bonus marks to 20.
7. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State argued that petitioner had produced a certificate of having worked in Mobile Medical Van for 3 years and 1 month, but the duty chart for persons deployed in Mobile Van including petitioner, shows that they are required to work only for 20 days in a month. He argued that this being the position, petitioner's experience is liable to be calculated on the basis of actual number of working days, which were 20 in each month. Accordingly, petitioner has experience of 2 years and 1 month and thus, entitled for only 20 bonus marks, submitted Mr. Mehta.
8. Heard.
9. It is undisputed that the experience certificate duly verified by the competent authority shows that petitioner possesses experience of 3 years, 1 month and 27 days. It is to be noted that petitioner's employer had made payment on monthly basis and his experience certificate has also been issued on such basis.
10. In considered opinion of this Court, once the salary is being paid on monthly basis, the petitioner and/or any other employee is required to be treated to have worked for all 30 days in a month, barring exceptional cases.
11. Looking to the nature of job responsibilities, if a person is required to work on lesser number of days in a month, it would be (Downloaded on 12/01/2021 at 08:52:48 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-2577/2020] injustice and disrespect to his hard work or peculiarity of job on account of which he is given duties only for 20 days, despite payment being made for 30 days.
12. It can well be understood that since the petitioner's duty was to be attached with Mobile Medical Van, he was required to work only for 20 days, obviously looking to the onerous nature of the duties.
13. In response to Court's query, Mr. Mehta admitted that even if a person does not work on Sundays or National Holidays, such days are required to be considered in his experience. If a person despite being assigned duties for 20 days in a month, has been paid salary for the whole month, why would his experience be not of 30 days, particularly when he did not remain absent?
14. The respondents' action of calculating experience on the basis of duty chart or number of days the petitioner was required to work, is therefore, per-se arbitrary.
15. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for 30 bonus marks.
16. The respondents are directed to award 30 bonus marks to the petitioner and accord him appointment, if he falls in merit and is otherwise eligible.
17. Needful be done within a period of six weeks from today.
18. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 16-CPGoyal/-
(Downloaded on 12/01/2021 at 08:52:48 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)