Candidate Not Responsible For State's Mistake In Issuing Experience Certificate, Cannot Be Denied Appointment: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court observed that the State could not take advantage of its own wrong of issuing an incorrect experience certificate to the petitioner and then making her run from pillar to post, and rejecting her candidature for the post of Auxiliary Nurse & Midwives based on such mistake.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing a petition filed by a candidate for the post of Auxiliary Nurse and Midwives in which bonus marks were to be awarded to the candidates who had previously worked on the post.

The petitioner being eligible applied but did not find her name in the merit list since she was not awarded the bonus marks based on the experience certificate submitted by her on the ground that as per the dates mentioned in the certificate she did not have required experience of one year.

It was the case of the petitioner that while issuing the certificate, the competent authority had correctly mentioned that she had worked for 385 days, however, owing to typographical error, wrong dates were mentioned in the certificate that made the total duration of work little less than one year.

In the reply submitted by the State, it was submitted that the petitioner should have applied for rectification of error in the certificate when the same was issued. Since no steps were taken by her to rectify the mistake, the experience certificate could not be considered for her selection.

Rejecting the submission of the State, the Court highlighted that the mistake of mentioning wrong date was committed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Udaipur, while issuing the experience certificate, for which the petitioner could not be made responsible.

“Clearly, the shoe is on the other foot. The respondents are trying to take advantage of their own wrong for issuing an incorrect certificate and making the petitioner run from pillar to post. Their stand is, therefore, being noted only to be rejected.”

It was held that since the certificate mentioned 385 days, the same should be treated to be effective from the appropriate date.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and it was held that the petitioner, if otherwise found to be eligible, be issued the appointment letter.

Title: Laxita Kumari Patidar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 401

Click Here To Read/Download Order