2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 19090
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Nupur Bhati, J
Sanjay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15600/2025
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Recruitment and Selection
Act Referred
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Himanshu Pareek
For the Respondents: Tanuj Jain, Mukesh Dave
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge the rejection of their candidature for nursing officer due to salary being paid via a trust. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dispute over whether salary source (ngo/trust) affects the validity of experience gained in government institutions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. the purpose of bonus marks is to reward actual practical experience, regardless of the administrative salary route. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. affirmation that rule 19 focuses on the nature and length of experience rather than the source of payment. (Para 8) |
| 5. ppp model experience is legally equivalent to direct government payment for the purpose of bonus marks. (Para 9) |
| 6. quashing of the rejection order and direction to grant bonus marks and appointment if eligible. (Para 10 , 11) |
Order
1. The present writ has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-
a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 24.07.2025 (Annexure- 07), whereby the candidature of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground of non- verification of experience certificate.
b) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondent No. 3 to grant due weightage to the experience of the petitioners for the post of Nursing Officer, as the petitioners were working against duly sanctioned government posts since October 2019.
c) to issue a direction to the Respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for final selection on merits in light of the marks obtained by them and category-wise cut-off, without disqualifying them on the ground of salary source.
d) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
e) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioners are challenging the order dated 24.07.2025, whereby their candidature for the post of Nursing Officer under the Nursing Officer Recruitment-2023 was rejected on the ground that their experience certificates were not considered, as they were receiving salary through a charitable trust and not directly from the State Government. The respondent No.3 issued an advertisement dated 05.05.2023 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Nursing Officer. The petitioners applied pursuant to the said advertisement and participated in the recruitment process. They were called for document verification and subsequently secured marks higher than the cut-off of their respective categories in the provisional merit list dated 06.12.2024. However, in the final merit list dated 24.03.2025, their results were kept on hold on account of non-verification of their experience certificates, which ultimately led to rejection of their candidature by the impugned order dated 24.07.2025. According to the petitioners, they have been working as Nursing Staff since 10.10.2019 at Smt. Mohini Devi Jugraj Hingad Government Community Health Centre, Ghanerao, District Pali, against Government-approved posts established under a Memorandum of Understanding between the State Government and a charitable trust. Their appointments were made with the approval of the Medical and Health Department, and they continued to serve, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioners assert that although their salaries were disbursed through the Trust, the nature of their employment remained on Government-approved posts and, therefore, they were entitled to experience under the recruitment rules. Aggrieved by the rejection of their candidature, the petitioners submitted a representation, which was not considered, compelling them to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashing of the impugned order and a direction to grant due experience and consider their candidature for appointment.
3. Learned counsel for the pe