[2025:RJ-JP:15479] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15311/2024 Mintu Kumari D/o Nand Kumar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village And Post Chandwa, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Medical And Health Services, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director (Public Health), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 3. The Director (Non-Gazette), Medical And Family Welfare Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur. 4. The Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare (Sihfw), Jhalana Dungari, Ghat Ki Ghuni, Jaipur- 302004. 5. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jhunjhunu. 6. The Block Chief Medical Officer, Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15469/2024 Meena Kumari Meena D/o Shri Gopi Ram Meena, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Bye Pass, Agra Road, Pilot Nagar, Dausa (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. 3. State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare, Through Its Director, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Intjar Ali Mr. Prithvi Pal for Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Ms. Anjili Sharma, Mr. Rahul Verma & Mr. Prakhar Jain [2025:RJ-JP:15479] (2 of 4) [CW-15311/2024] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 07/04/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondents have rejected the experience certificate of the petitioners for the reason that the same was not in the format as prescribed in the advertisement. 2. It is further submitted that the petitioners have applied for the prescribed format before a competent authority and taken all possible efforts for furnishing the said certificate, however, the same was not supplied to the petitioner before/by the last date/due date. 3. Further, it is submitted that upon receiving the certificate in a prescribed format, petitioners have submitted the said document however, respondents have not considered the same. It is further submitted that as on date, no third party rights are created and document verification has not taken place. 4. Additionally, it is further submitted that on akin factual matrix Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10537/2024 has taken a lenient view vide order dated 02.09.2024 which is reproduced as under: “Considering parity in the matter, the writ petition merits acceptance and therefore, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Lab Technician, if he is otherwise found eligible. The respondents shall comply with the directions issued by this Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” [2025:RJ-JP:15479] (3 of 4) [CW-15311/2024] 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-State was unable to refute the said contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. Heard the submissions of respective sides, scanned the record and taking note of the judgment cited at the Bar, this Court has made the following observations:- 6.1. That the advertisement pertain to the post of ‘Family Health Worker’. 6.2 That the petitioners have applied for the prescribed format before the competent authority in time, however, for the reasons beyond control of the petitioner, by the due date/last date, petitioners were not in receipt of the same, therefore qua their experience along with requisite details in the format other than the prescribed format was submitted to the respondents which was not considered by the respondents. 6.3. Howsoever, upon receipt of the required certificate in the prescribed format, the same was furnished before the respondents, however, same was not considered for the reason that due date to submit the same has passed. 6.4. This Court has analyzed that there is a difference between substantive and procedural conditions/requirement. Once the substance conditions/requirements are met out, lenient approach has to be taken qua relaxation of procedural condition/ requirement. The procedural requirement in the instant matter qua submission of experience certificate in the prescribed format is worth condonable for the reason that as on date no third party rights are created. [2025:RJ-JP:15479] (4 of 4) [CW-15311/2024] 6.5 Relying upon the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court is of the view that delay in filing form in the prescribed format be condoned if the petitioner upon verification of the certificate is found eligible and is otherwise on merit, this Court directs that their candidature be considered for appointment on the post of Female Health Worker within an upper limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 7. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/s-634-635