[2026:RJ-JD:1174]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15689/2019 Yutendra Kumar S/o Shri Natthi Lal Sharma, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Bharkau, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus District Collector, Collectorate, Chittorgarh.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwajeet Joshi for Mr. Ranjeet Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hamendra Puri Goswami HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

09/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of ‘Driver’ after awarding bonus marks qua his experience.

2. The case of the petitioner is that although he had an experience certificate for a period of four years issued in his favour, the said certificate was not considered by the respondent- authorities and bonus marks to the extent of 15 were not granted to him as per the condition of the advertisement.

3. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the experience certificate for four years as relied upon by the petitioner in the present writ petition, was never submitted by him with his application form. It is only the experience certificate Annexure-4 which was submitted by him and the said certificate reflected an experience from the period of 23.05.2009 to 30.06.2010 i.e. a period of one year only. As per the terms of the advertisement, no bonus marks could have been awarded for an experience of one year.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court is of the clear opinion that even if the alleged experience of 4 years of the petitioner is taken into consideration, he would be entitled to 5 bonus marks as per the advertisement. The petitioner, even if directed to be awarded a bonus of 5 marks, he definitely would not fall in merit and hence, even otherwise he cannot be granted appointment.

5. As per the averment made in ground 3 of the petition, the last selected candidate in General Category scored 79.70 marks. Admittedly, the petitioner secured 67.25 marks. Meaning thereby, even if the 5 bonus marks are awarded to the petitioner, his score would be 72.25 marks only which definitely is less than the last selected candidate.

6. The prayer made by the petitioner for award of 15 bonus marks is clearly without any basis as the maximum bonus marks which could be awarded as per the advertisement was 10 marks and that too on an experience of five or more years. Even as per the petitioner, his experience was of four years.

7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a new ground to the effect that the complete selection process itself was arbitrary and the selections have been made dehors the seats reserved qua the specific categories. He submitted that despite there being 4 seats for General category, only 2 General category candidates have been selected.

8. So far as the above ground regarding the requirement process itself being dehors the rules is concerned, evidently the said ground is not a part of the writ petition. Not a single averment to the said effect has been made in the complete petition. The writ petition is only on one ground that the bonus marks were not awarded to the petitioner. In that view, no new ground can be permitted to be raised, that too, during the course of arguments. The petitioner, if aggrieved, is at liberty to take the appropriate remedy. By all means the said ground cannot be entertained in the present writ petition.

9. In view of the overall facts, it is evident that even after the award of 5 bonus marks, the petitioner would not fall in merit and hence, cannot be afforded appointment. In that view of the matter, no further issue requires to be dealt with by this Court and the writ petition is hence dismissed

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

145-Taruna/-