IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the validity of experience certificates is determined by the actual experience possessed by the candidate, rather than the authority issuing the certificate, thereby prioritizing substance over form in administrative processes.

ORDER :

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.

1. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is identical, therefore, they are being heard and decided by this common order.

2. For proper adjudication of the case, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13292/2020 (Payal Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.) are being taken into consideration.

3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that the respondents initiated the process of recruitment for appointment on the post of Safai Karmachari in accordance with Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employee Service) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2012”) by issuing an advertisement dated 13.04.2018. A corrigendum to the advertisement dated 13.04.2018 was issued on 28.04.2018, whereby, the requirement of having counter signature of the Head of the Department on the experience certificate issued by a contractor/placement agency was dispensed with. Thereafter, an order dated 17.05.2018 was issued by the Department of Local Self Government providing guidelines for the above recruitment. The eligible persons including the petitioner submitted her candidature for the post of Safai Karamchari and on being found successful, the appointment order dated 14.07.2018 was issued. While the petitioner was discharging her duties as Safai Karamchari, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent No.2 on 23.11.2020 purportedly in compliance of the directions issued by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : D.B.S.A.W. No.1733/2018 decided on 09.08.2019. The petitioner submitted reply to the same, however, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 03.12.2020 by the respondent No.2 on the ground that her experience certificate is not certified by the competent authority. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and thereafter, in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 06.04.2023, an additional affidavit has also been filed by the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the petitioners were given appointment after following due process of law and they discharged their duties after appointment on the post to the utmost satisfaction of the respondent-authorities. The post of Safai Karamchari is the lowest post in the respondent-Department on which the petitioners were given appointment. He submits that the petitioners were performing the duties of Safai Karamchari and they obtained the experience certificate from the Sanitary Inspector under whom they were discharging their duties and the certificates issued by the other authorities under whom, they had performed the duties as Safai Karamchari for a period of one year or more and therefore, the same was produced before the respondent-authorities in support of their eligibility for experience. Since the petitioners belong to the lowest rung of the society and are not literate enough to understand the consequences of not producing the certificate issued by the Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of the respondent-Department, they produced a certificate of the Sanitary Inspector showing the experience of work performed by them on the post of Safai Karamchari.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that even as per Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employee Service) Rules, 2012, it is not mandatory to obtain a certificate from a particular authority or any Municipality, Central or State Government Departments, Autonomous Bodies/Semi-Government Institutions. He also submits that since the Rule does not mandate the Authority from whom the certificate is to be obtained, then the conditions mentioned in the notification/advertisement dated 13.04.2018 that the certificate should be under the signature of a particular Authority is de hors the rules.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the certifi