Point of Law : Court is firmly of the opinion that experience certificate dated issued by respondent department is required to be taken into consideration for grant of bonus marks to the petitioner.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the experience certificate produced by the petitioner may be considered for grant of bonus marks and thereafter, if the petitioner falls in the merit list, he may be given appointment on the post of LDC.

3. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner after completion of his Secondary and Senior Secondary school education, acquired graduation from MDS University, Ajmer in the year 2010. Thereafter, he also obtained an RSCIT Certificate from the University concerned on 03.07.2010. The petitioner had also performed the work of Data Entry Operator on “job basis” in MGNREGA Scheme in the Panchayat Samiti from 15.11.2008 to 30.06.2010. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Computer Operator in MGNREGA Scheme on 01.01.2011. The petitioner applied for the post of LDC in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 2013. The experience certificate which was granted to the petitioner for performing the work on “job basis” from 15.11.2008 to 30.06.2010 was not considered for grant of bonus marks to the petitioner and that is why he has preferred this writ petition with the prayer for considering the certificate issued by the respondents of having performed the job of Computer Data Operator on “job basis” and for allocation of appropriate marks on the basis of the same.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has the experience certificate dated 14.08.2017 of having performed the work of Data Entry Operator on “job basis” from 15.11.2008 to 30.06.2010 and another experience certificate dated 24.04.2013 of having performed the work of Computer Data Operator w.e.f. 01.01.2011 to 31.03.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the experience certificates should have been taken into consideration for allocation of bonus marks in view of Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1996’).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, while preparing the merit list, both the certificates were taken into consideration for grant of bonus marks to the petitioner, however, after document verification, the list of successful candidates was issued for appointment on the post of LDC, but the petitioner’s name was not in the list. On inquiry having been made, it was informed to the petitioner that he is not entitled to the bonus marks for the certificate issued to him on 14.08.2017 on account of the fact that he has performed the duties of Data Entry Operator on “job basis.” Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner performed the work of Computer Data Operator, therefore, the manner in which he was engaged is not relevant. He submits that as per proviso to Rule 273, the words which are of vital importance is the “Length of Experience” which is required to be taken into consideration and since the petitioner has performed the work of Data Entry Operator, the same should have been required to be taken into consideration while allocating the marks of experience. He also submits that merely because the mode of “Engagement” was “job basis” the experience gained by the petitioner on the post of Data Entry Operator cannot be washed away. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in proviso to Rule 273, the kind of engagements have not been mentioned, thus, it will not be of any significance whether the petitioner performed the work of Computer Data Operator on being engaged on “job basis” contract basis or through placement agency. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to consider allocation of marks considering the experience certificate dated 14.08.2017.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mitendra