Dismissed

Vandana Purohit v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 Nov 2023CW/3141/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the exclusion of her Bridge Programme duration and Nurse Grade II recruitment selection. Court held Bridge Programme cannot add to experience and petitioner's marks were below the female unreserved cut-off, dismissing the petition. This case is about service recruitment merit and experience calculation. The petition was dismissed. No relief was granted.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's challenge to the merit list and request for appointment was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.

Vandana Purohit Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:41030]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3141/2020

¶4

Vandana Purohit D/o Shri Mohan Lal Purohit W/o Shri Nitin Paliwal, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Near Acharya Printing Press, Hastinapur, Kankroli District Rajsamand

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶10

The Joint Director, Medical And Health Services, Zone Ajmer.

¶11

The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Rajsamand

¶12

The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jaipur

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Jain. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with Mr. Shreyansh Mehta & Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit.

¶15

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶16

Order

¶17

29/11/2023

¶18

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

¶19

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the merit list of Nurse Grade II (GNM) dated 08.01.2020 (Annexure No.5) may kindly be declared illegal to the extent of

(2 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:41030]

[CW-3141/2020]

including the name of the petitioner in the non-selected list, the respondents may kindly be directed to include the name of the petitioner in merit list dated 08.01.2020 as per their merit and respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Nurse Grade II (GNM) alongwith their eligible candidates as stated in the merit list dated 08.01.2020.

¶24

Any other order favorable to the petitioner may also be passed.”

¶25

Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioner, who possesses the requisite qualification of Sr. Secondary and General Nursing and Midwifery Course, is registered with Rajasthan Nursing Council. The petitioner was applied through the placement agency and remained in service from 01.07.2017 to 30.12.2017, and meanwhile, also completed her Bridge Course Certificate for Community Health for nurses from 01.07.2017 to 30.12.2017. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process in pursuance of the advertisement dated 27.05.2019 as a General Female candidate for the post of Nurse Grade-II, but the grievances of the petitioner is that she has not been selected despite falling in the merit.

¶26

Mr. Vinay Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the duration of the course of Bridge Programme on Certificate in Community Health from 01.07.2017 to 30.12.2017 ought to be taken as an experience as well.

¶27

Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit, AAG assisted by Mr. Shreyansh Mehta & Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has shown this Court the judgment dated 03.09.2020 rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Kirti Kumar

[2023:RJ-JD:41030]

[CW-3141/2020]

(3 of 4)

Patidar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1596/2020, whereby this Hon’ble Court has held that the respondents were justified in confining the experience certificate to the extent of actual days worked or on the basis of payment made to the employees. It was further held that a candidate can claim bonus marks only for the period of actual working days or the payment made to him.

¶32

4.1 Thus, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the period of undergoing the Bridge Programme for Certificate in Community Health for nurses cannot be combined with the experience certificate.

¶33

4.2 Learned Additional Advocate General also submits that the petitioner, in her own category, has attained 56.784 marks in the category of Female General whereas the cut-off marks for the recruitment for the same category is 58.192 marks, and thus, the petitioner does not fall in merit for the experience already given.

¶34

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited at Bar, this Court finds that the petitioner, who is participating in the selection process for the post of Nurse Grade-II in pursuance of the advertisement dated 27.05.2019, qualifies for 10 bonus marks as her actual experience is 01 year 07 months and 27 days and the duration for which, she has completed the Bridge Programme on Certificate in Community Health for nurses, cannot be added to her experience, and thus, the respondents have rightly added 10 bonus marks to the petitioner tally of the marks. Furthermore, the cut-off marks for the Female unreserved

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:41030]

[CW-3141/2020]

category is admittedly 58.192 marks whereas the petitioner has only secured 56.784 marks, and thus, she does not fall in the merit.

¶39

In view of the above, no interference in the present writ petition is called for and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶40

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶41

61-Zeeshan

Vandana Purohit v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandana Purohit v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Naresh Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kiran Kumar Damor Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Vs State of Rajasthan

Subhash Chandra Tabiyar Vs State of Rajasthan

Praveen Kumar Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Fateh Granites Limited Vs Raj.Financial Corporation, Jaipur and Ors.