-1- S.A.W. No.183/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.183 of 2010 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2162 of 2010 Deepika Verma daughter of Shri Radhey Shyam Verma V E R S U S The State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Judgment :::: 04/08/2010 Hon'ble Mr.Justice Dalip Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Kothari Shri Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Shri Jai Kumar Yogi, Counsel for the appellant Shri Dinesh Yadav, A.A.G. for the respondents *** Per Court : This special appeal has been preferred by the petitioner-appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15th February 2010 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2162 of 2010 came to be dismissed. The petitioner submitted that the respondents had issued an advertisement on 18.08.2008 under the Rajasthan Women and Child Development (State & Subordinate) Service Rules, 1998 for recruitment in the 75% quota by means of direct recruitment for the post of Supervisor (Female). The petitioner claims that she is employed as an Instructor and has been Training the Anganwari Workers for the last more than four-years having been employed in the year 2006 as per certificate placed on record. The case of the petitioner is that the -2- S.A.W. No.183/2010 petitioner holds a post graduate diploma in Nutrition and Health and has sufficient experience in the field of Women and Child Welfare, which is the criteria provided under Annexure-7 for determining the merit of the candidates. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the criteria the petitioner ought to have been awarded marks both for her post graduate diploma as well as for work experience which has not been awarded. The respondents have filed their reply and the learned Additional Advocate General did not dispute the fact that so far as the work experience is concerned, the petitioner was not given any marks on account of the fact that the petitioner is not an Anganwari Worker, but is an Instructor. At the same time, it has not been disputed that no marks have been awarded on account of the post graduate diploma in Nutrition and Health. Looking to the above facts, it is necessary that the aforesaid criteria may be taken note of under Column No.4 where it has been provided that for post graduation with 1st Class, four marks will be awarded which may be proportionately reduced on account of the division secured by the candidate. Since, the petitioner claims to have a post graduate diploma with first division, the claim of the petitioner is that she ought to have been awarded four marks for the -3- S.A.W. No.183/2010 same. More particularly when the petitioner has acquired the qualification in the subject “Nutrition and Health” which to say the least has significant relevance in the nature of the service for which the petitioner has applied. The second submission is with regard to the marks awarded under Criteria No.5 for award of marks for work experience which reads as follows : 5. "मातृत एवं िशशु कãयाण से सàबǔÛधत Ǒकये गये उãलेखनीय काय[ का अनुभव ूमाण पऽ ( ूितवष[ 2 के आधार पर गणना कȧ जावे ) ये अंक 10 से अिधक नहȣं Ǒदये जावे। अनुभव ूमाण पऽ हेतु सरकारȣ व अƨ[ सरकारȣ संःथाओं मɅ मातृ एवं िशशु कãयाण सàबÛधी काय[ का अनुभव हȣ माÛ य होगा। अƨ[ सरकारȣ से अिभूाय केÛि अथवा राÏय सरकार Ʈारा गǑठत िनगम बोड[, मÖडल एवं ःथानीय िनकाय अथवा केÛि व राÏय सरकार के ःवािम×व वाले संःथान है। ःवयं सेवी संःथाओं Ʈारा जारȣ ूमाण पऽ माÛय नहȣं होगा।यह अंक वष[ पय[Ûत काय[ के िलए हɇ न Ǒक कुछ समय के िलए काय[ के िलए। एक वष[ से कम कȧ अविध के काय[ के िलए कोई अंक देय नहȣं है।" Against the aforesaid, it has further been stated as under :- "10 (अिधकतम 10 अंक 5 वष[ के अनुभव के िलए) ( उदाहरण के िलए सािथन अथवा संǒवदा पर ए एन एम के Ǿप मɅ 5 वष[ काय[ करने पर 10 अंक." The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant is that under the aforesaid criteria No.5 the petitioner ought to have been awarded eight marks for work experience but she has not been awarded any marks at all under this head, despite the fact that the petitioner has been working as an Instructor and training Anganwari Workers to whom such marks are being awarded. -4- S.A.W. No.183/2010 In response to the aforesaid, it is not disputed by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner is an Instructor and has Trained Anganwari Workers, who are serving in the Department. However, he submits that under the aforesaid criteria the work experience as an Instructor is not included for the purposes of awarding of marks under this criteria and it is only the experience as Anganwari Workers, Sathin and A.N.Ms. who have been included. At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant also submitted that the marks are to be awarded not only on the basis of general experience but also on the basis of the work experience which is qualified by the word “Outstanding” (उãलेखनीय). It is, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-appellant that the respondents have been awarding marks simply on the criteria of experience and not giving any weightage to the word Outstanding (उãलेखनीय). He, therefore, submits that the respondents have committed an error in awarding marks to all candidates other than the petitioner merely on the basis of the experience without going into the fact whether such experience has been “Outstanding” i.e. (उãलेखनीय) as stated in the Para No.5. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the respondents have given the marks on the basis of the experience certificates only without actually -5- S.A.W. No.183/2010 going into the fact that such experience is “Outstanding” or not. However, he submits that it was not the case of the petitioner that only certificates with “Outstanding" experience have been taken into consideration before the learned Single Judge. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and we find under the Criteria No.5 quoted above for determination of merit additional marks were to be awarded to the candidates for the work experience qualified by the word “Outstanding” and, therefore, the respondents could not have awarded the marks merely on the basis of the work experience alone without taking into consideration the fact that the work experience was “Outstanding” or not. Since admittedly the marks have been awarded without taking into account the word “Outstanding” (उãलेखनीय), which qualifies the experience as required by the guidelines, the award of such marks to the candidates would be contrary to the aforesaid guidelines and such merit list prepared on the basis of the same would be contrary to the guidelines issued in this behalf. We are in agreement with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant that the respondents could not have ignored the work experience of the petitioner as an Instructor imparting training to the Anganwari Workers when marks for work experience have been awarded to such workers, Sathin and A.N.Ms. The work experience of the -6- S.A.W. No.183/2010 petitioner in training the Anganwari Workers is an experience in the field of Women and Child Welfare and Nutrition and ought not to have been ignored for recruitment on the post of Supervisor in the Women and Child Development Department. It would be quite an anomaly that the persons who have been imparting training as Instructors and training the workers so as to qualify them in becoming Anganwari Workers and making them eligible for further appointment to the higher post of Supervisor, these very Instructors would not be entitled to award of additional marks for their work experience, when even unqualified Sathins and A.N.Ms. are being awarded marks for their experience. We find that the criteria provided under Column No.5 does not necessarily require that the candidates should have field experience because all that has been stated is that "मातृत एवं िशशु कãयाण से सàबǔÛधत Ǒकये गये उãलेखनीय काय[ का अनुभव ूमाण पऽ." It cannot be denied that the work which the petitioner was performing as an Instructor and training Anganwari Workers was not related to the aforesaid Work relating to Women and Child Welfare. The word “सàबǔÛधत" means in relation to and can not be given a narrow meaning. We, therefore, find that not awarding the marks both under the Criteria Nos.4 and 5 and ignoring the work experience of the petitioner as well as awarding marks to all candidates on the basis of -7- S.A.W. No.183/2010 experience without taking into consideration whether such experience is “Outstanding” (उãलेखनीय) as required by Column No.5 was contrary to the aforesaid mandate of the guidelines issued by the respondents themselves. The merit list, therefore, so prepared by the respondents is contrary to the aforesaid guidelines. During the course of hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that on the basis of the aforesaid merit list, Annexure-7, the candidates were called for interview and have since then given appointment and, therefore, it would be unjust without these selected candidates being before the Court to quash the merit list. We are in agreement with the learned Additional Advocate General that since the selected candidates who were called for interview on the basis of the merit list so prepared by awarding marks on the basis of mere experience without such experience being outstanding which would result in the reduction of the total marks and consequent change in merit and there is a possibility that such candidates may have received upto 10 marks as admitted by the learned Additional Advocate General may have their marks reduced by 10 so as not to qualify for the interview for which the cut of was 39% and the petitioner may qualify on this basis. Though we have found that the respondents have erred in preparation of the merit list and not given the due weightage to the criteria -8- S.A.W. No.183/2010 provided therein, we do not wish to unsettled the entire selections and the appointment given on the basis of the aforesaid exercise done by the respondents if relief is given to the petitioner alone. In the facts and circumstances, the wrong done to the petitioner deserves to be remedied. We are, therefore, inclined to accept this special appeal. Since the petitioner-appellant has not been awarded due weightage and marks while determining the merit on the basis of marks which ought to have been awarded to her as per Column Nos.4 and 5 of the guidelines, we would, therefore, direct the respondents to award her the marks under Criteria Nos. 4 and 5 and call the petitioner-appellant for interview, determine her merit and then she may be given appointment. The special appeal as well as the writ petition are accordingly allowed with the above directions. The stay application also stands disposed of. (S.S. Kothari)J. (Dalip Singh),J. Ashok/