The main legal point established is that the entitlement of the petitioners for bonus marks for their work with FRHS India should be decided by the Director, Medical Health, and the court refrained from making a decision at that juncture.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners have approached this Court with the grievance that the respondents are not issuing them experience certificate, which is a precursor to claim bonus marks for recruitment to the post of Nursing Officer notified by the advertisement dated 16.11.2022.

2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that the petitioners claim to have worked as Nursing staff with Foundation for Reproductive Health Services India (hereinafter referred to as "FRHS India") (formerly known as Meristopes India) - an agency with whom the State Government has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the purpose of carrying out vasectomy (Family Planning Operation). The petitioners have asserted that they have worked in Government Hospitals for discharging the Nursing duties pursuant to the MOU signed between their Principal (FRHS India) and the State Government.

3. The petitioners claimed to have applied for grant of experience certificate in order to stake their claim for bonus marks, however, their request has not been favourably considered by the concerned CMHO, hence they have to approach this Court.

4. Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that maybe, the petitioners have worked in FRHS India but the said organisation is similar to a placement agency, which provides staff to the State as per their requirements. He argued that since the respondents are awarding bonus marks not only to the directly engaged contractual employees but also to the personnel who have been engaged through placement agency, (7 of 9) [CW-19290/2022] there is no rationale behind not issuing experience certificate and denying bonus marks to the petitioners, who have discharged their services for the purpose of implementation of Family Planning Scheme or other schemes of the State Government.

5. In support of his contention that the petitioners are entitled for experience certificate, learned counsel invited Court's attention towards an experience certificate dated 29.06.2018 (though granted for earlier recruitment) and argued that not only the CMHO at Chittorgarh had issued the experience certificate to a candidate having worked through FRHS India, but also she was even awarded bonus marks and given appointment.

6. It is noteworthy that in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19299/2022 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19376/2022, per viam order dated 21.12.2022, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has issued directions to the concerned CMHO to decide petitioners' applications for grant of experience certificate.

7. Mr. Mohit Singhvi, learned counsel (for the petitioners in the writ petitions referred in preceding para) submitted that pursuant to direction given on 21.12.2022, by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the concerned CMHO has sought information and clarification from the Directorate and asked, as to whether the experience certificate can be issued to the candidates working with or through FRHS India or not.

8. Various documents were produced by Mr. Singhvi in order to substantiate that the matter is pending consideration with the State Government.

9. Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, on the other hand argued that neither the said FRHS India can be treated to be a placement (8 of 9) [CW-19290/2022] agency nor can the petitioners be deemed to have worked with the State Government.

10. It was asserted that the agency namely FRHS India is providing Family Planning Services not only to the State run Hospitals (as per the MOU) but also to the other private Hospitals as well and thus, experience (if any) gained by the petitioners while working in the Hospitals other than the State run Hospitals/ Community Health Centres (CHCs) etc.; cannot be counted. He argued that the petitioners cannot claim themselves to be contractual employees or the employees engaged through placement agencies.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

12. S