The main legal point established in the judgment is that the pendency of a writ petition and the timing of the experience certificate issuance cannot be grounds to deny appointment if the petitioner fulfills all the requisite qualifications for the post.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Lawyers are abstaining from work and are not appearing before the Court.

2. Heard the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

"1. The respondents may very kindly be directed to treat the petitioner eligible on the basis of experience certificate dated 4.3.2020 (Annex.9) and provide him appointment to the post of L.D.C. in pursuance of the recruitment advertisement-2013 if he is otherwise found eligible with all consequential benefits;

2. The respondents may very kindly be directed to consider the representation dated 9.9.2022, 12.9.2022 and 13.9.2022 (Annex.11) filed by the petitioner and include the name of the petitioner in merit list (waiting list), and provide him appointment to the post of L.D.C. in pursuance of the recruitment advertisement-2013, if he is otherwise found eligible with all consequential benefits;

3. The respondents may kindly be directed to call the petitioner for documents verification and counseling for the post of LDC.

4. The respondents be further directed to comply with the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 20.5.2019 (Annex.7) in its true letter.

5. The petitioner may kindly be afforded appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk in pursuance of recruitment advertisement-2013, if otherwise he stands in merit with all consequential benefits."

4. The petitioner present in person submits that in pursuance of the notification issued in the year 2013, he applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk and despite fulfilling all the requisite qualifications, he was not given the appointment on the ground that the certificates produced by him were not in proper format.

5. He preferred a writ petition before the Jaipur Bench, however, the same was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.

6. The petitioner filed another writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1345/2019 which was allowed vide order dated 20.05.2019 and the authorities were directed to do the needful with regard to issuance of certificate in favour of the petitioner, but when the directions were not complied with, then a contempt petition was also filed.

7. During the pendency of these proceedings, the State Government issued a circular on 07.09.2022 for filling up 4000 posts from the listed candidates.

8. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred number of representations to the respondents but the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed, hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

9. The respondents have appeared on caveat.

10. On 06.02.2023, following order was passed:-

"Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appointment to the petitioner, though the petitioner is at serial no.1 in the merit has been denied on account of pendency of the present writ petition and refers to the Minutes of District Establishment Committee in this regard. He may place the said Minutes on record, after supplying the copy of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

He would not be required to support the said document with affidavit and office would accept the same without affidavit and tag with the present writ petition.

List the petition on 13.2.2023."

11. The Minutes of District Establishment Committee have been placed on record.

12. The only ground for denial of the appointment to the petitioner is shown to be the pendency of the present writ petition and the experience certificate having been issued after the cut off date i.e. 04.03.2020.

13. As per the list produced, the petitioner’s name is reflected at serial No.1. Except the two infirmities pointed out herein above, the petitioner fulfills all the requisite qualifications for holding the post of LDC.

14. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the respondents as to whether the credibility of the experience certificate is under doubt, the learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the veracity of the exp