ORDER :

Rekha Borana, J.

1. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Engineer in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Department dated 02.04.2013. A corrigendum to the advertisement was issued on 30.04.2013 and in Clause No. 9 of the said corrigendum, the revised process for selection was mentioned. Clause No. 9 of the corrigendum advertisement dated 30.04.2013 is reproduced herein, which reads as under:

^^¼9½ la'kksf/kr p;u izfØ;k %& jkT; ljdkj }kjk funsZf'kr la'kksf/kr izfØ;k ds vuqlkj dfu"B vfHk;Urk ¼flfoy@eSdsfudy@bysfDVªd½ ds in ij p;u iw.kZr% eSfjV ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tk;sxkA esfjV fyLV gsrq fuEu ekinaM fu/kkZjr fd;s x, gSaA
& dqy 100 vad
& 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk ¼3 o"khZ; fMIyksek ;k fMxzh ¼flfoy@eSdsfudy@bySfDVªdy bathfu;fjax½ esa dqy izkIrkad ds vk/kkj ij½ & 65 vad
& jktLFkku dk ewy fuoklh & 5 vad
& vuqHko ¼fdlh Hkh ljdkjh foHkkx@ljdkjh dEiuh esa dk;Z djus dk vuqHko] izR;sd o"kZ ds 10 vad½ & vf/kdre 30 vad**

2. A provisional list for selection was issued by the Department in which the name of the petitioner found place and the total marks obtained by him were mentioned to be 76.98. However, the petitioner was not finally selected, in which case, he preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12737/2013. Vide order dated 03.04.2014, the writ petition of the petitioner was disposed of with the following directions:

"In view of the fact that the appointments have already been granted to the candidates and if any candidate, having less percentage of marks than the petitioner, has been provided appointment, then the petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh representation before the respondents within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the event of receiving such representation by the Local Self Body, the Govt. of Rajasthan, the said authority shall decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter, while taking into consideration the fact that if any candidate, having lesser percentage of marks than the petitioner, under the category of physically handicapped, has been provided appointment, then the claim of the petitioner for appointment shall be decided strictly in accordance with law.

3. In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner moved representation dated 10.04.2014 before the concerned authority and when the same was not responded to, he served a legal notice dated 07.07.2014 to which a response dated 03.09.2014 was received and it was informed that the representation of the petitioner had been decided and the petitioner had already been informed of the same vide letter No. 1762 dated 11.06.2014. It was further stated in the communication that as the experience certificate obtained by the petitioner was prior to the date of obtaining technical degree, he was not entitled to the 30 marks qua his experience. So, after deduction of 30 marks from his total obtained marks of 76.98, he was left with 46.98 marks only and therefore, his name did not reflect in the final select list.

4. Aggrieved against this communication dated 03.09.2014, the present petition has been filed.

5. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had the experience of working with the government departments as required under the advertisement and certificate qua the same had also been issued by the competent authorities. So far as his obtaining the experience certificate prior to a date of his obtaining technical degree is concerned, counsel has stated that in fact he had obtained two diploma certificates at two different points of time. He submitted that in the year 1997, he had obtained a two years diploma certificate after successful completion of the course from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India). On the basis of the said qualification, he was appointed as a Junior Technical Assistant in the MNEREGA scheme vide order dated 30.03