1. Challenge to cancellation of experience certificate denying bonus marks in LDC recruitment under Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 595
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Ritesh Rathore, S/o. Shri Mohan Lal Rathore - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan – Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15763 of 2017
Decided On : 06-03-2026
Important Points
Experience gained under rural health schemes implemented via local government institutions qualifies for bonus marks in departmental recruitments. Cancellation of certificates conferring valuable rights without a hearing violates principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Subject
Service Law - Public Employment / Recruitment
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) State Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 - Rule 273 - Recruitment for the post of Lower Division Clerk - Bonus marks for experience - Cancellation of experience certificate without notice - Violation of principles of natural justice - Experience gained under a health scheme implemented through rural local bodies - Entitlement to bonus marks - State actions in public employment must be fair and non-arbitrary under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 1, 6, 14, 17)
(B) Natural Justice - An order cancelling a certificate that confers a valuable right cannot be passed without affording the affected party an opportunity of hearing. (Para 6)
(C) Recruitment Bonus Marks - Experience gained under a rural health mission, where implementation is undertaken through local government institutions and staff function under their administrative control, must be considered for bonus marks in recruitment conducted by the local government department. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner worked as a data entry operator under a health scheme implemented through local government institutions. An experience certificate was initially issued by a competent authority for the purpose of awarding bonus marks in a recruitment process for the post of lower division clerk. However, the respondents cancelled the certificate without issuing a show-cause notice or providing a hearing, asserting that the health scheme was administered by the health department and not the local government department.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the order cancelling the experience certificate was passed without considering the factual position that the health scheme was implemented through local government institutions in rural areas. The mechanical cancellation of the certificate, which created a valuable right for the petitioner, was deemed arbitrary and prejudicial.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of an experience certificate without a hearing was legally sustainable and whether experience gained under a health scheme implemented via local government institutions entitles a candidate to bonus marks in the local government department's recruitment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that experience gained under rural health schemes implemented via local government institutions cannot be ignored for bonus marks merely because the scheme was initially administered by a different department. Furthermore, cancelling a certificate that affects a candidate's selection prospects without following the principles of natural justice is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Result: Writ petition allowed. The order cancelling the experience certificate is quashed. Respondents are directed to re-determine merit by awarding admissible bonus marks and, if the petitioner falls within the zone of selection, grant appointment with notional seniority and benefits.
(B) Natural Justice - An order cancelling a certificate that confers a valuable right cannot be passed without affording the affected party an opportunity of hearing. (Para 6)
(C) Recruitment Bonus Marks - Experience gained under a rural health mission, where implementation is undertaken through local government institutions and staff function under their administrative control, must be considered for bonus marks in recruitment conducted by the local government department. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner worked as a data entry operator under a health scheme implemented through local government institutions. An experience certificate was initially issued by a competent authority for the purpose of awarding bonus marks in a recruitment process for the post of lower division clerk. However, the respondents cancelled the certificate without issuing a show-cause notice or providing a hearing, asserting that the health scheme was administered by the health department and not the local government department.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the order cancelling the experience certificate was passed without considering the factual position that the health scheme was implemented through local government institutions in rural areas. The mechanical cancellation of the certificate, which created a valuable right for the petitioner, was deemed arbitrary and prejudicial.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of an experience certificate without a hearing was legally sustainable and whether experience gained under a health scheme implemented via local government institutions entitles a candidate to bonus marks in the local government department's recruitment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that experience gained under rural health schemes implemented via local government institutions cannot be ignored for bonus marks merely because the scheme was initially administered by a different department. Furthermore, cancelling a certificate that affects a candidate's selection prospects without following the principles of natural justice is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Result: Writ petition allowed. The order cancelling the experience certificate is quashed. Respondents are directed to re-determine merit by awarding admissible bonus marks and, if the petitioner falls within the zone of selection, grant appointment with notional seniority and benefits.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
-
right to equality
- non-arbitrariness in public employment (Para 17)
-
right to equality
-
fundamental rights
- service law
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Prateek Saxena Advocate on behalf of Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, Additional Advocate General.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Prateek Saxena Advocate on behalf of Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, Additional Advocate General.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued violation of natural justice; respondents contended scheme not under Panchayati Raj Department. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. Certificate cancelled without considering NRHM scheme link to Panchayati Raj; action arbitrary and prejudicial. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. Experience under NRHM in rural areas entitles bonus marks despite initial Medical Department administration. (Para 16 , 17 )
5. Writ allowed; certificate quashed; directed to re-determine merit with bonus marks and grant notional benefits. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
6. Is cancellation of an experience certificate without a show cause notice violative of natural justice?
Yes, cancelling a certificate conferring a valuable right without an opportunity of hearing is arbitrary and illegal. (Para 6 , 14 )
7. Is experience under a National Rural Health Mission scheme eligible for bonus marks in Panchayati Raj recruitment?
Yes, experience under NRHM in rural areas is eligible as it is implemented through Panchayati Raj Institutions. (Para 15 , 16 )
8. What is the principle governing state actions in public employment matters?
State actions must satisfy the test of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16. (Para 17 )
JUDGMENT :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging office order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the respondents cancelling experience certificate dated 05.06.2017 issued in favour of the petitioner and consequently, denying him the benefit of bonus marks in the recruitment process for the post of Lower Division Clerk pursuant to advertisement dated 12.02.2013 issued under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1996'). The petitioner has further prayed that the respondents be directed to grant him bonus marks on the basis of his experience and further to grant him appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk with consequential benefits.
2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, are that the petitioner passed the Secondary Examination in the year 2000 securing 54.17% marks and thereafter passed the Senior Secondary Examination in the year 2002 securing 53.54% marks. The petitioner thereafter obtained a certificate of Business Professional Programmer ‘O’ Level from DOEACC Society on 08.04.2005. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been working as Data Entry Operator under the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme (RNTCP) through a placement agency, namely, M/s Porwal Placement, Baran and had joined duties on 01.12.2005. According to the petitioner, he continuously worked under the said scheme for a considerable period and the payments for his services were made through the placement agency.
3. It is stated that the respondents issued advertisement dated 12.02.2013 for recruitment on the post of LDC as per amended Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996. Clause 11 of the advertisement deals with basis of selection, bonus marks and further lays down that for the purpose of preparing the merit list, 70% weightage shall be given to the marks obtained by the candidate in Senior Secondary Examination. The candidates, who had experience of working on different posts mentioned in the above clause (including Data Entry Operator) in different organisations and schemes referred in the said clause would be entitled for bonus marks in proportion to the years of experience of the respective candidates. For possessing experience of 1/2/3 years, 10/ 20/ 30 bonus marks respectively, as the case may be, shall be awarded. Thereafter, final merit list shall be prepared by adding 70% marks obtained by the respective candidate in Senior Secondary Examination with the bonus marks for experience, if any. The petitioner also participated in the aforesaid recruitment process.
4. The petitioner has placed on record various experience certificates issued by the competent authorities from time to time certifying that he had worked as Data Entry Operator under the RNTCP scheme. On the basis of the said experience, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Baran issued an experience certificate dated 05.06.2017 in favour of the petitioner certifying his experience for the purpose of grant of bonus marks in the recruitment process for the post of Lower Division Clerk pursuant to advertisement dated 12.02.2013 issued by the respondents.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that after obtaining the said experience certificate, he submitted a representation dated 03.08.2017 before the competent authority requesting that bonus marks be awarded to him on the basis of the experience certificate issued in his favour. However, the respondents vide order dated 11.08.2017 cancelled the said experience certificate without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition stating therein that in case bonus marks were awarded to him on the basis of such experience certificate, he would have secured proper place in the merit list entitling him for appointment.
6. Learned counse
