Principles of natural justice require that individuals be given an opportunity of hearing before being disqualified from a recruitment process.

JUDGMENT/ORDER :

Arun Bhansali, J.

1. This petition along with a bunch of 20 writ petitions, enlisted in the appended Schedule give rise to same issue, which shall be treated to be part and parcel of the order instant, are decided by a common order.

2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are candidates at the recruitment to the post of Lab Assistant vide notification dated 29.5.2018.

3. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petitions that the qualification inter alia provided that those having minimum 3 years' experience of working as Laboratory Assistant/Lab Technician in State Government Hospitals on contract basis or through Service Provider Agency, shall also be eligible.

4. The petitioners being eligible based on the said eligibility indicated after obtaining the requisites from the concerned officers, filed applications. The certificates were valid for eligibility as well as for award of bonus marks as provided in the advertisement.

5. However, the respondents apparently based on material, which was collected by the respondents ex parte, have not accepted the certificates produced by the petitioners of having worked on the post of Lab Technician/Lab Assistant and treating them as having worked on post different from the said post i.e. as Lab Attendant/Ward-boy/Cleaner/Helper has held them ineligible and have not awarded bonus marks.

6. Various submissions have been made that in the petitions seeking to question the action of the respondents in rejecting the certificates produced by the petitioners and claiming that they are entitled to be treated as qualified and for award of bonus marks based on the said certificates.

7. A response to the writ petition initially was filed by the respondents seeking to indicate that the respondents after looking to the nature of certificates produced by the petitioners, have sought specific inputs from the authorities, which have issued the certificates based on an Eleven Pointer issued to the said authorities and as the said authorities have disclosed facts in the Eleven Pointer, which indicates that the experience of the petitioners is not that of Lab Technician/Lab Assistant, they have been held as ineligible.

8. Today learned counsel appearing for the State has made an additional submission by referring to the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2021, that in terms of the amendment made by notification dated 9.12.2021, which has came into effect from 23.5.2018 and essentially pertains to the advertisement dated 29.5.2018, the requirement for eligibility inter alia includes diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology even from the un-recognized institution besides the experience on the post of Laboratory Technician or Laboratory Assistant.

9. Further submissions have been made that the authorities which have issued the certificates were specifically required to indicate the nature of duties performed by the candidates based on the job responsibilities of various posts, which were supplied to them and then come to a conclusion as on what post, the experience was gained by the candidates and based on the said material, the decision has been taken, which cannot be faulted. However, it is not denied that the issue has been decided by the authorities holding the petitioners as not qualified without affording any opportunity of hearing to them and in teeth of the certificates issued by the very same authorities, who have responded to the Eleven Pointer.

10. In the circumstances of the case, where admittedly the respondents have relied on certain material, which has been collected ex parte supplied by the same authorities, who have issued the certificates favouring the petitioners making them eligible for the appointment in terms of the advertisement dated 29.5.2018, which certificate is sought to be displaced based on such material, the said action could not have been taken by the respondents without affording an opportunity of hearing to t