The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, regarding the entitlement of bonus marks for experience gained through a placement agency and the requirement of working under specific departments or schemes.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner vied for the post of Lower Division Clerk in furtherance of the advertisement dated 16.02.2013, issued for LDC Recruitment, 2013. While submitting the application form, the petitioner claimed bonus marks for the experience, he had gained while working as a Computer Operator through placement agency.

2. When the result was declared, the petitioner was not awarded bonus marks by the respondents, because he had not worked directly with the State Government and his services were taken through placement agency.

3. Candidates working through placement agencies including the petitioner moved the High Court by way of filing writ petitions (petitioner’s writ petition being D.B. C.W.P. No. 11064/2013 decided on 30.10.2013), which bunch of writ petitions led by Mitendra Singh Rathore & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. C.W.P. No. 1723/2013) were allowed by the Division Bench of this Court per viam order dated 30.07.2013 inter alia observing that simply because a person has worked through placement agency, he cannot be denied bonus marks. The said view of the Division Bench was affirmed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court per viam order dated 17.12.2017 in a bunch of Petitions to Special Appeal led by State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Prakash Chandra Sharma & Anr. (SLP (C) Nos. 33576 – 33584 of 2013).

4. The recruitment in question remained in hibernation for quite some time and in September, 2022, the same was again set in motion and candidates were called for documents verification.

5. When the petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the list of such candidates (called for documents verification), he submitted a representation/objection dated 23.09.2022 inter alia stating that he is entitled to bonus marks and accordingly, his marks come to 71.67 per cent, which are higher than the cut off in his category (69.20 per cent) and prayed that his name be included in the process of recruitment.

6. When the respondents did not call him for documents verification, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to accord him bonus marks and to give him appointment.

7. For claiming bonus marks, the petitioner has relied upon the Experience Certificate dated 04.01.2013 (Annx.3) issued by the Assistant Director, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Bhilwara, which certifies that, the petitioner had worked as Computer Operator on contract basis through the placement agency from 01.10.2009 till the date of issuance of certificate.

8. Mr. Paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has worked as Computer Operator through placement agency and in light of the Division Bench judgment dated 30.07.2013 rendered in the case of “Mitendra Singh Rathore & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” (D.B. C.W.P. No. 1723/2013), the petitioner is entitled for bonus marks and if the same are given to him, his score falls much above the cut off marks.

9. Mr. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that for the same relief, the petitioner had earlier also filed a writ petition being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11064/2013, which has been allowed in terms of the judgment of Mitendra Singh Rathore (supra) by a Division Bench of this Court on 30.10.2013, whereafter, the petitioner’s candidature was considered but since, he did not work under the Panchayati Raj Department or a scheme run by the Panchayati Raj Department, bonus marks were not awarded to him.

10. Learned counsel also pointed out that feeling aggrieved of such action of the State, the petitioner moved another writ petition in the year 2017 being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5340/2017 and by order dated 12.05.2017, a coordinate Bench of this Court rejected the petitioner’s writ petition inter alia observing that second writ petition for the same cause was not maintainable.

11. While highlighting that not only the intra court appeal against the order dated 12.05.2017, even review petition filed by