1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3696/2004 (Himmat Sain Vs. JVVN Ltd. & Ors.) Date of order : 15.7.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. S.G. Ojha, for the respodnent No.5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner is claiming his right for considering his candidature for appointment on the post of Assistant Personnel Officer in pursuance of the notification dated 7.6.2004 (Annexure-5). According to the facts of the case, the petitioner joined the service in the respondent Department on 25.7.1991 on the post of work charge employee as L.D.C. Thereafter vide order dated 15.2.1995, he was made permanent on the post of LDC. As per the petitioner he has applied for appointment on the post of Assistant Personnel Officer in 2 pursuance of Annexure-3, which was issued for appointment on the post of A.P.O. amongst in service candidates but he was declared unsuccessful and no marks were granted for experience on the ground that he is not possessing experience of personnel side. The contention of the petitioner is that he was deployed to look the legal work in the Personnel Section by the order of the Personnel Officer dated 2.6.2001 but the respondents while ignoring the said certificate granted the said benefit of marks to only those candidates who were allowed to work in personnel side. The contention of the petitioner is that he was deployed in the legal side of personnel section, which is evident from order dated 2.6.2001, therefore, respondent cannot deny marks of experience which is prescribed for work in personnel side because petitioner was also deployed in personnel section, therefore, denial of marks of experience is discriminatory. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court towards experience certificate issued by the Superintending Engineer, P&S Jodhpur DISCOM in which it is mentioned that the petitioner is having experience to work in the personnel section, therefore, as per the petitioner, he was wrongly denied the marks which is prescribed for experience by the respondents and granted to other similarly 3 situated persons. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the petitioner is not entitled for marks of experience as per the criteria fixed by the respondents. It is further argued that the petitioner after appearing in the selection process claiming the benefit of marks for experience knowingly well that as per advertisement itself he was not held entitled for marks of experience because petitioner is working in legal side of personnel section. It is also argued by the respondents that although petitioner was deployed in personnel section but he was not performing duty in the personnel side, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for marks of experience as provided in the policy decision of the respondents for recruitment on the post of Assistant Personnel Officer. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the entire record of the case. In my opinion, the petitioner was allowed to work in the personnel section and he was assigned the duties of legal side, then, how it can be said that the petitioner is not entitled for marks of experience because after deployment in personnel section every employee working in personal section is to be treated as employee working in personnel side. Obviously, the petitioner was allowed to work in the personnel 4 section and his work may be different from the candidates who were selected and granted benefit of experience. Therefore, in my opinion, the denial of marks of experience to the petitioner as prescribed for experience is totally discriminatory. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner while granting him marks prescribed for experience while taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is also entitled for the said marks of experience provided for the employees of personnel side from the date when he was deployed in the personnel section vide order dated 2.6.2001. The respondents are further directed to complete this exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If the petitioner found suitable after consideration for appointment on the post of Assistant Personnel Officer, then he may be granted all consequential benefits. However, the petitioner will be entitled for notional benefits of fixation from the date of appointment of similarly situated Assistant Personnel Officers but petitioner will be entitled for actual benefits from the date of filing writ petition. No order as to cost. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun