Intend To Confine Benefit To Those Employed In Rajasthan: High Court Upholds Policy Denying Bonus Marks For Nursing Experience Gained In Other States
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a plea seeking direction to the state government to treat the experience gained by the petitioner in Gujarat as eligible for award of bonus marks under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic Rules, for recruitment to the post of Compounder / Nurse Junior Grade. In furtherance, the court opined that the intention of the State is to confine the benefit of award...
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a plea seeking direction to the state government to treat the experience gained by the petitioner in Gujarat as eligible for award of bonus marks under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic Rules, for recruitment to the post of Compounder / Nurse Junior Grade.
In furtherance, the court opined that the intention of the State is to confine the benefit of award of bonus marks to those employed in the enumerated schemes within the State of Rajasthan and not others.
Essentially, the petitioner, who is working with the Regional Ayurveda Research Institute, Ahmedabad (Gujarat), based on his experience certificate dated 1.7.2021, applied for the post and sought bonus marks for the experience as depicted in the experience certificate.
The respondents apparently did not award the bonus marks for experience and consequently, the name of the petitioner did not appear in the list of candidates qualified for Nurse/ Compounder vacancy for unreserved category. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition was filed.
The court relied on the division bench order in the State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Satya Dev Bhagaur & Ors [D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.837/2019], decided on 13.8.2019, regarding pari materia provisions of Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, where it was laid down that benefit of award of bonus marks cannot be given to candidates who gained experience outside the State of Rajasthan.
Justice Arun Bhansali, while dismissing the petition, ruled,
"The Division Bench clearly came to the conclusion that the intention of the State is to confine the benefit of award of bonus marks to those employed in the enumerated schemes within the State of Rajasthan and not others. In view thereof, the plea raised by the petitioner apparently has no substance."
The court further rejected the case relied by the petitioner i.e. Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12942/2015], on the ground that the same is based on the unamended proviso of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service rules, 1965 and as such the interpretation placed therein, cannot be employed for the purpose of interpreting the amended provision, which as noticed hereinbefore, already stands concluded by Division Bench of this Court.
On perusal of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, the court observed that award of bonus marks has been confined to similar work under the Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, National Health Mission, Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurveda University, Jodhpur or any Ayush Project in the State of Rajasthan run by the Government, as the case may be.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are not justified in denying the requisite marks to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the experience gained by the petitioner at Ahmedabad, cannot be denied to be counted in terms of the experience certificate.
In contrast, the counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the plain reading of the stipulation made in the advertisement would reveal that it is only the experience which is gained within the State of Rajasthan, which is eligible for award of bonus marks and as admittedly, the petitioner has produced the experience of having worked outside the State of Rajasthan, he is not entitled for award of bonus marks.
Adv. O.P. Sangwa appeared for the petitioner, while AAG Anil Kumar Gaur and Adv. Suniel Purohit appeared for the respondents.
Supreme Court Observations
Yesterday, the Supreme Court had observed that the Top Court's interference is not required in policy decisions when a State is in a position to point out that there is intelligible differentia in application of policy and that such intelligible differentia has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
The bench of Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai was considering appeal assailing Rajasthan High Court's order dated August 13, 2019 wherein the High Court had allowed State's appeal challenging Single Judge's order.
The Single Judge while allowing the appellant's writ petitions had directed the State to grant bonus marks to the appellants who had worked under the National Health Mission Schemes ("NHM") and National Rural Health Mission Schemes ("NRHM") in States other than the State of Rajasthan. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Single Bench decision. Challenging this, private parties approached the Supreme Court.
While dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court in Satya Dev Bhagaur & Ors v State of Rajasthan & Ors 2021 LiveLaw SC 177 observed that,
"It is trite that the Courts would be slow in interfering in the policy matters, unless the policy is found to be palpably discriminatory and arbitrary. This court would not interfere with the policy decision when a State is in a position to point out that there is intelligible differentia in application of policy and that such intelligible differentia has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved."
Case Title: Hari Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan
Case Title: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 67
Click Here To Read/Download Order