Ritesh Rathore Vs State of Raj and Ors.

[2026:RJ-JP:9839]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15763/2017

Ritesh Rathore S/o Shri Mohan Lal Rathore, aged about 33 years, R/o Shri Nand Bhawan, Near Nagar Stone, Jhalawar Road, Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayat Raj Elementary Education) Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Raj.

¶10

Additional Commissioner Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶11

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Baran, Rajasthan 6. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Kota. 7. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jhalawar, Rajasthan. 8. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bundi, Rajasthan. 9. District Tuber Closes Diseases Officer, Baran, Rajasthan.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner	: Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma Advocate.
For Respondents	: Mr. Prateek Saxena Advocate on
	behalf of Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur
	Additional Advocate General.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶15

Judgment

¶16

06/03/2026

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging office order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the respondents cancelling experience certificate dated 05.06.2017

[2026:RJ-JP:9839]

[CW-15763/2017]

(2 of 9)

issued in favour of the petitioner and consequently, denying him the benefit of bonus marks in the recruitment process for the post of Lower Division Clerk pursuant to advertisement dated 12.02.2013 issued under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1996'). The petitioner has further prayed that the respondents be directed to grant him bonus marks on the basis of his experience and further to grant him appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk with consequential benefits.

¶22

The facts giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner passed the Secondary Examination in the year 2000 securing 54.17% marks and thereafter passed the Senior Secondary Examination in the year 2002 securing 53.54% marks. The petitioner thereafter obtained a certificate of Business Professional Programmer ‘O’ Level from DOEACC Society on 08.04.2005. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been working as Data Entry Operator under the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme (RNTCP) through a placement agency, namely, M/s Porwal Placement, Baran and had joined duties on 01.12.2005. According to the petitioner, he continuously worked under the said scheme for a considerable period and the payments for his services were made through the placement agency.

¶23

It is stated that the respondents issued advertisement dated 12.02.2013 for recruitment on the post of LDC as per amended Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996. Clause 11 of the advertisement deals with basis of selection, bonus marks and further lays down that for the purpose of preparing the merit list,

[2026:RJ-JP:9839]

[CW-15763/2017]

(3 of 9)

70% weightage shall be given to the marks obtained by the candidate in Senior Secondary Examination. The candidates, who had experience of working on different posts mentioned in the above clause (including Data Entry Operator) in different organisations and schemes referred in the said clause would be entitled for bonus marks in proportion to the years of experience of the respective candidates. For possessing experience of 1/2/3 years, 10/ 20/ 30 bonus marks respectively, as the case may be, shall be awarded. Thereafter, final merit list shall be prepared by adding 70% marks obtained by the respective candidate in Senior Secondary Examination with the bonus marks for experience, if any. The petitioner also participated in the aforesaid recruitment process.

¶28

The petitioner has placed on record various experience certificates issued by the competent authorities from time to time certifying that he had worked as Data Entry Operator under the RNTCP scheme. On the basis of the said experience, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Baran issued an experience certificate dated 05.06.2017 in favour of the petitioner certifying his experience for the purpose of grant of bonus marks in the recruitment process for the post of Lower Division Clerk pursuant to advertisement dated 12.02.2013 issued by the respondents.

¶29

It is the further case of the petitioner that after obtaining the said experience certificate, he submitted a representation dated 03.08.2017 before the competent authority requesting that bonus marks be awarded to him on the basis of the experience certificate issued in his favour. However, the respondents vide order dated 11.08.2017 cancelled the said

[2026:RJ-JP:9839]

[CW-15763/2017]

(4 of 9)

experience certificate without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition stating therein that in case bonus marks were awarded to him on the basis of such experience certificate, he would have secured proper place in the merit list entitling him for appointment.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is argued that once the competent authority had issued an experience certificate in favour of the petitioner certifying the experience gained by him under the RNTCP scheme, the same could not have been cancelled without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel submits that the cancellation of the experience certificate has the effect of depriving the petitioner of the benefit of bonus marks in the recruitment process and, therefore, the respondents were under a legal obligation to comply with the principles of natural justice before passing any adverse order.

¶35

While relying upon office order/circular dated 02.10.2010 issued by the Medical and Health Department and information furnished to the petition under Right to Information Act, 2005, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had worked under the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme which forms part of the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). It is contended that the NRHM scheme has been implemented in rural areas through Panchayati Raj Institutions and, therefore, the experience gained by the petitioner under the

[2026:RJ-JP:9839]

[CW-15763/2017]

(5 of 9)

said scheme is liable to be considered for the purpose of grant of bonus marks in the recruitment process conducted by the Panchayati Raj Department.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Neeraj Prasad Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6082/2017 decided on 04.05.2017) wherein Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that persons working under the National Rural Health Mission Scheme in rural areas are entitled to grant of bonus marks for the experience gained by them while considering their candidature for recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk under the Panchayati Raj Department. It is, therefore, submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the said judgment and the petitioner is entitled to similar relief.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also indicated that vide orders dated 14.09.2017 and 25.10.2017 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court on Misc. Applications filed in the present writ petition, an interim arrangement was made to the extent that the respondents were required to consider the experience certificate of the petitioner for the purpose of awarding bonus marks and to consider the petitioner for appointment. However, it was also directed that the appointment order shall not be issued without prior approval of this Court.

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bonus marks inasmuch as the scheme under which the petitioner had worked, namely the RNTCP

[2026:RJ-JP:9839]

[CW-15763/2017]

(6 of 9)

Scheme, is not a scheme run by the Panchayati Raj Department. It is submitted that the said scheme is directly run and monitored by the Medical and Health Department and, therefore, the experience gained by the petitioner under the said scheme cannot be considered for the purpose of awarding bonus marks in the recruitment process conducted by the Panchayati Raj Department. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the experience certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was scrutinised and upon seeking clarification from the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, it was clarified that the benefit of bonus marks is to be granted only to those candidates who have worked in schemes run by the Panchayati Raj Department. It is, therefore, submitted that the experience certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was rightly cancelled in view of the said clarification and no illegality has been committed by the respondents.

¶47

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the material available on record. 13. From the pleadings and documents placed on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had worked as Data Entry Operator under the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme for a considerable period of time and the said fact had been duly certified by the concerned authorities. It is also not in dispute that the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Baran had issued an experience certificate dated 05.06.2017 certifying the experience of the petitioner for the purpose of grant of bonus marks. However, the said certificate was subsequently cancelled vide order dated 11.08.2017.

[2026:RJ-JP:9839]

[CW-15763/2017]

(7 of 9)

At the outset, this Court finds that the impugned order cancelling the experience certificate has been passed without considering the relevant circulars and factual position that Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme was part of NRHM scheme, which was given under the control of Panchayat Raj Department. Thus, ignoring the significant fact that the experience certificate issued in favour of the petitioner conferred upon him a valuable right to claim bonus marks in the recruitment process and the cancellation of the said certificate mechanically in ignorance of correct factual position adversely affected his prospects of selection. The action of the respondents in cancelling the certificate is, therefore, clearly arbitrary and causing prejudice to the petitioner.

¶52

Apart from above, this Court also finds that the stand taken by the respondents with regard to the ineligibility of the petitioner for grant of bonus marks is not legally sustainable. The material placed on record indicates that the activities under the National Rural Health Mission at the district level were to be implemented through Panchayati Raj Institutions and the staff engaged for such activities were to function under the administrative control of the Panchayati Raj system in rural areas. 16. This Court in the case of Neeraj Prasad Sharma (supra), after examining office order/ circular dated 02.10.2010, has already considered a similar issue and held that persons, who have worked under the National Rural Health Mission Scheme in rural areas, are entitled to grant of bonus marks for the experience gained by them. The relevant reasoning adopted in the said judgment makes it clear that the experience gained under the

[2026:RJ-JP:9839]

[CW-15763/2017]

(8 of 9)

NRHM scheme cannot be ignored merely on the ground that the scheme was initially administered by the Medical and Health Department, particularly when the implementation of the scheme at the rural level was undertaken through Panchayati Raj Institutions.

¶57

It is settled proposition of law that State actions in matters of public employment must satisfy the test of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness as envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Denial of bonus marks to the petitioner despite possessing valid experience under a rural development scheme would amount to discriminatory treatment, particularly when similarly situated candidates have been granted the benefit of such experience.

¶58

In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 11.08.2017 cancelling the experience certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed. 19. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned office order dated 11.08.2017 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The experience certificate dated 05.06.2017 issued in favour of the petitioner shall be treated as valid for the purpose of grant of bonus marks in the recruitment process for the post of Lower Division Clerk pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.02.2013.

¶59

The respondents are directed to re-determine the merit of the petitioner after awarding him the admissible bonus marks for the experience gained by him. In the event the petitioner falls within the zone of selection after such recalculation, the

[2026:RJ-JP:9839]

[CW-15763/2017]

(9 of 9)

respondents shall issue an appointment order in favour of the petitioner on the post of Lower Division Clerk. However, considering the fact that the recruitment process relates to the year 2013 and the petitioner has not actually worked on the said post during the intervening period, the petitioner shall be entitled to notional seniority and notional benefits from the date candidates lower in merit were appointed, but he shall not be entitled to actual arrears of salary for the past period. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶64

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶65

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶66

MANOJ NARWANI /124

Ritesh Rathore v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh Rathore v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar Mishra Son of Shri Ramakant Mishra Vs State of Rajasthan

Shambhu Lal Teli Son of Sh. Jamak Lal, Vs Sh. Joga Ram

Paramjeet Singh S/O Shri Guru Dev Singh Vs Shri Purusottam Sharma, Managing Director

Manish Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Laxman Vs State of Rajasthan

Manthan Kumar S/O Mahender C/O Chetsingh Jagarwal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rajpal Baswal S/O Bhagwan Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan