IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the petitioner was entitled to age relaxation and bonus marks as per the Rules of 1965 and the Circular/letter dated 08.02.2016, despite the rejection of his candidature by the respondents.

ORDER :

1. The factual matrix of the case in brief is that on 01.07.2013 the respondent No.4 [Additional Director (Admn.), Medical & Health Department), issued an advertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidates for recruitment on the posts of Assistant Radiographer, Lab Technician and Lab Assistant. As per the facts available on the record, the petitioner submitted his Online application form. The petitioner stated in the application form that he has worked as a Lab Technician from 31.05.2005 to 28.02.2013 at ECHS Polyclinic, Churu under a Scheme maintained and operated by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents by not considering his experience certificate dated 28.03.2013 on the ground that it is not a genuine and authentic one, as required under the provisions of advertisement for the purpose of granting bonus marks and age relaxation. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents department in view of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6881/2015, decided on 06.10.2016. However, the representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he is over-aged. Therefore, he cannot be allowed the age relaxation on the basis of the experience certificate issued to him in his favour as same has not been issued by the Institution of the Central Government.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Notification dated 06.02.2013 issued by the Department of Personnel, Govt. of Rajasthan, provides for relaxation in age by a period equal to service rendered on the similar post in any capacity, subject to maximum of five years, under the Government, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under the Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar. Counsel further submitted that as per the advertisement dated 01.07.2013, the maximum age limit for consideration of the candidature is 35 years. Counsel also submitted that the High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10246/2013, decided on 26.02.2016 has observed that in view of the Circular dated 08.02.2016 issued by the respondents, as referred in that, for the purpose of granting bonus marks to the employees working on contract basis, the word ‘government’ shall include the ‘State Government as well as the Central Government’. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner had an experience of working as a Lab Technician at ECHS Polyclinic Churu, which was maintained and operated by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence. Counsel submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was made as a Lab Technician on contract/ personal bond/ temporary basis under the Ex-Soldier Contributory Health Scheme. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of bonus marks as well as age relaxation on the basis of experience certificate issued in his favour for working under ECHS. Counsel further submitted that the respondents without taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and the observations of the High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10246/2013, decided on 26.02.2016 as well as the order dated 6.10.2016 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6881/2015, have rejected the candidature of the petitioner vide order dated 26.07.2017 holding him to be over-age saying that the experience certificate possessed by him is not issued by the institution of the Central Government.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents department submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit on the basis of experience certificate issued in his favour because he is claiming the age relaxation and bonus marks on the basis of experience certificate in view of the Circular/letter dated 08.02.2016. Counsel further submitted that the Circular/ letter dated 08.02.2016 has been withdrawn lateron by the responden