'Intelligible Differentia' : Supreme Court Upholds State Policy To Deny Bonus Marks To NRHM/NHM Employees In Other States

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 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."

The bench also said that policy of the State of Rajasthan to restrict the benefit of bonus marks only to such employees who have worked under different organizations in the State of Rajasthan and to employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in the State of Rajasthan, could not be said to be arbitrary.

Factual Background

The State of Rajasthan has framed rules known as Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Services (Amendment) Rules, 2013 ("Rules").

The ­State of Rajasthan on May 30, 2018 had issued a notification wherein it had provided that candidate who had worked under the Government, Chief Minister BPL Life Saving Fund, NRHM Medicare Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, National TB Control Program, Jhalawar Hospital and Medical College Society, Samekit Rog Nirgrani Pariyojna or State Institute of Health Family Welfare (SIHFW), would be entitled to bonus marks as per the experience attained.

The advertisement also provided that only such of the candidates who were having experience certificate from the competent authority as mentioned in the advertisement would be entitled to the bonus marks.

The appellants having the experience of working under the NRHM scheme on contract basis in different States, approached the High Court vide various writ petitions seeking a direction to the ­State of Rajasthan to accept the experience certificate of the petitioners which was issued by the NRHM authorities of different States, so as to qualify them for getting the bonus marks.

Although the Single Judge on August 28, 2018 had allowed the writ but on State's appeal, the Division Bench of High Court had allowed State's appeal.

High Court had observed that the intention of the State of Rajasthan was to confine the benefit of award of bonus marks to those employed in the schemes within the State of Rajasthan and not in other States.

Submission Of Counsels

Appearing for the appellant's the counsel contended that Rule 19 of the said Rules itself enabled a candidate working anywhere in the country under the NHM/NRHM schemes to qualify to get the bonus marks.

It was also counsel's contention that the candidate cannot be deprived of the same on the ground that only the employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in the State of Rajasthan were entitled to such benefit. Counsel further argued that to discriminate between employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in the State of Rajasthan as against those working outside the State of Rajasthan, was without intelligible differentia, not having the nexus with the object sought to be achieved and as such, was palpably arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Appearing for the State, Senior Counsel contended that object of Rule 19 was only to give additional weightage for the services rendered by the contractual employees either with the State Government or under the schemes executed or implemented in the State of Rajasthan.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The bench in the judgement authored by Justice BR Gavai referring to Rule 19 which deals with "Scrutiny of Applications" said that it appeared that the policy of the State of Rajasthan was that while selecting Nurse Compounder Junior Grade, the bonus marks were to be given to such employees who have done similar work under the State Government and under the various schemes.

Relying on the judgements in Krishnan Kakkanth vs. Government of Kerala and others (1997) 9 SCC 495 and Sher Singh and Others vs. Union of India and Others (1995) 6 SCC 515, the bench said,

"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."

Emphasis was also laid on the judgement in Jagdish Prasad and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (DB. Civil Writ Petition No. 12942/2015) wherein the High Court had held that experienced candidates in other States cannot be compared with the candidates working in the State of Rajasthan, as every State has its own problems and issues and the persons trained to meet such circumstances, stand on a different pedestal. It has been held that persons having special knowledge in working in the State of Rajasthan form a class different than the persons not having such experience of working in the State.

 "We are in complete agreement with the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench. We find that the policy of the State of Rajasthan to restrict the benefit of bonus marks only to such employees who have worked under different organizations in the State of Rajasthan and to employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in the State of Rajasthan, cannot be said to be arbitrary," Court said.

The bench also referred to the judgement in Sachivalaya Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Union, Jaipur vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (2017) 11 SCC 421 wherein it Top Court had upheld the policy of the State of Rajasthan, for giving weightage for the services rendered by the employees, where services were used by the State either temporarily or on ad hoc basis.

Case Title: SATYA DEV BHAGAUR & ORS. v THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.| CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1422 OF 2022

Coram: Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai

Citation : 2021 LiveLaw (SC) 177

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Mr. Himanshu Jain and Ms. Alpana Sharma

Counsel for State: Senior Advocate Dr. Manish Singhvi

Headnotes