Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Ritesh Rathore vs State Of Raj And Ors (2026:Rj-Jp:9839) on 6 March, 2026
[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.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayat Raj Elementary
Education) Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Raj.
4. Additional Commissioner Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. 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.
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Prateek Saxena Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur
Additional Advocate General.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
06/03/2026
1. 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
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 05:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/03/2026 at 09:09:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9839] (2 of 9) [CW-15763/2017]
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.
2. 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.
3. 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,
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 05:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/03/2026 at 09:09:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9839] (3 of 9) [CW-15763/2017]
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.
4. 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.
5. 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
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 05:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/03/2026 at 09:09:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9839] (4 of 9) [CW-15763/2017]
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.
6. 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.
7. 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
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 05:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/03/2026 at 09:09:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9839] (5 of 9) [CW-15763/2017]
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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 05:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/03/2026 at 09:09:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9839] (6 of 9) [CW-15763/2017]
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.
12. 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.
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 05:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/03/2026 at 09:09:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9839] (7 of 9) [CW-15763/2017]
14. 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.
15. 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
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 05:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/03/2026 at 09:09:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9839] (8 of 9) [CW-15763/2017]
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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
20. 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
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 05:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/03/2026 at 09:09:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9839] (9 of 9) [CW-15763/2017]
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.
21. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
MANOJ NARWANI /124
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 05:37:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/03/2026 at 09:09:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
