[2025:RJ-JD:54194]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9877/2019

Kavita W/o Shri Suresh, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of 332,

Harijan Basti, Pal Gaon, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department

Of Local Self Government, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur,

Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Singh Solanki for

Mr. Lokesh Mathur

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Purohit with

Ms. Darshita Pungaliya

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

16/12/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 29.03.2019 (Annex.3) whereby the appointment of the

petitioner on the post of ‘Safai Karamchari’, stood cancelled.

2. The appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the experience certificate as submitted by her (Annex. R/1) along with the application form was not for a period of one year which was a requisite condition of the advertisement. As per the experience certificate, the petitioner had work experience from 01.03.2014 to 01.01.2015, which definitely did not complete the

period of one year.

3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was never permitted to join in pursuance to the appointment order and she never remained in job.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the experience certificate as submitted along with the application form did not reflect the period of one year but then, at the time of document verification, one more experience certificate was submitted by the petitioner which reflected the work experience of two years and two months and hence, the same ought to have been considered.

5. After hearing the counsels and perusing the record, this Court is of the clear opinion that no interference in the order impugned is called for, for the following reasons :

(i) It is the settled position of law that if any requisite qualification is prescribed in the advertisement, the same definitely has to be possessed and proof thereof has to be submitted as per the condition of the advertisement. Admittedly, the experience certificate as submitted by the petitioner along with the application form did not reflect one year of experience which was a requisite condition.

(ii) So far as the experience certificate (Annexure-4) as alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner at the time of document verification is concerned, firstly, the same is not the certificate as submitted by her as the said certificate is different from the certificate (Annexure-R/1) as placed on record by the respondents along with the reply. As per the respondents, it is the certificates Annexure-R/1 which were submitted by the petitioner. Meaning thereby, the document Annexure-4 is a total new document which was never submitted by the petitioner before the respondents and has only been placed before this Court. In that view, the said certificate definitely not being before the respondents, could not have been considered by them.

Secondly, both the experience certificates - Annexure-4 as well as Annexure-R/1, reflecting the period of experience to be 2 years and 2 months, does not bear any date of issuance which makes the issuance itself doubtful.

(iii) Further, experience certificate Annexure-R/1 contains a recital that concerned issuing firm did not have any record of PF or ESI which again creates doubt about the experience period as reflected in the said certificate.

(iv) Furthermore, both the experience certificates have been issued by the same firm and it is incomprehensible as to why the experience as reflected in the second certificate was not reflected in the first certificate issued on 05.05.2018. 6. The writ petition is hence, dismissed

7. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of (REKHA BORANA),J

28-manila/-