1. Dispute over eligibility for bonus marks for Nurse Compounder Junior Grade based on experience under National Rural Health Mission schemes in states other than Rajasthan. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 148
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur)
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
Satya Dev Bhagaur and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1422, 1423-1425, 1426-1430, 1431-1437, 1438-1440 of 2022, SLP (C) Nos. 24434 of 2019, 7341-7345, 8155-8161, 13124-13126 of 2020, 6142-6144 of 2021
Decided On : 17-02-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Courts would be slow in interfering in policy matters unless policy is found to be palpably discriminatory and arbitrary.
Courts would be slow in interfering in policy matters unless policy is found to be palpably discriminatory and arbitrary.
Subject
Employment Law - Bonus Marks for Experience
Act Referred
Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Services Amendment Rules: R.19
Headnote
Service Law – Appointment – Bonus Marks – Policy of State of Rajasthan to restrict benefit of bonus marks only to such employees who have worked under different organizations in State of Rajasthan and to employees working under NHM/NRHM schemes in State of Rajasthan, cannot be said to be arbitrary – Courts would be slow in interfering in policy matters unless policy is found to be palpably discriminatory and arbitrary – Apex court would not interfere with 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 object sought to be achieved – No reason to interfere with impugned judgment – Appeals dismissed. [Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Services (Amendment) Rules, 2013 – Rule 19] (Paras 16, 22 and 24)
Facts of the case:
In the lead matter in this bunch of appeals, appellants assail the order dated 13.08.2019, passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 837 of 2019, thereby allowing appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, challenging order of the Single Judge of the High Court dated 28.08.2018. The Single Judge of the High Court vide the said order had allowed the writ petitions filed by the appellants and directed the respondent-State to grant bonus marks to appellants herein, who have worked under National Health Mission Schemes (NHM) and National Rural Health Mission Schemes (NRHM) in States other than the State of Rajasthan.
Finding of Court:
When sub-clause (ii) of Clause (7) of the advertisement mentions all other authorities who are the heads of the various establishments in the State of Rajasthan, the term ‘Project Director, NHM’ will have to be construed as ‘Project Director, NHM’ within the State of Rajasthan.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ravi Prakash, AOR Mr. Himanshu Jain, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Malik, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, Adv. Ms. Vagisha Nandini, Adv. Ms. Alpana Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raj Shekhar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv. Ms. Padma Priya, Adv. Mr. Anchit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. B.S. Rajesh Agrajit, Adv. Mr. Samdarshi Sanjay, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Rana, Adv. Ms. Dipti Singh, Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arpit Parkash, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Ms. Padmalakshmi Iyanger, AAG Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR Ms. Malvika Kala, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Malik, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Jain, Adv. Mr. Pranav Kumar, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ravi Prakash, AOR Mr. Himanshu Jain, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Malik, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, Adv. Ms. Vagisha Nandini, Adv. Ms. Alpana Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raj Shekhar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv. Ms. Padma Priya, Adv. Mr. Anchit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. B.S. Rajesh Agrajit, Adv. Mr. Samdarshi Sanjay, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Rana, Adv. Ms. Dipti Singh, Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arpit Parkash, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Ms. Padmalakshmi Iyanger, AAG Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR Ms. Malvika Kala, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Malik, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Jain, Adv. Mr. Pranav Kumar, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claim nationwide scheme experience is equivalent and restrictive policies violate Article 14; State contends bonus marks are intended only for experience gained within Rajasthan. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. The court found that the advertisement's list of competent authorities implies state-level jurisdiction and that specific training for Rajasthan's topography creates an intelligible differentia. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. Government policy decisions are not interfered with unless arbitrary or discriminatory, provided there is an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
5. Appeals dismissed; the State's policy to restrict bonus marks to experience gained within the State of Rajasthan is upheld. (Para 22 , 24 )
6. Under what circumstances will courts interfere with a government policy decision?
Courts generally avoid interfering with policy matters unless the decision is demonstrably capricious, arbitrary, mala-fide, contrary to statutory directions, or suffers from discrimination or unconstitutionality, provided the state cannot show an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
7. Can a state restrict bonus marks for experience in a national scheme to only those who worked within that state?
Yes, if the recruitment advertisement specifies competent authorities within the state and the state can demonstrate that experience within its specific topography and rural zones creates a distinct class of candidates with specialized knowledge. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
8. How is the concept of intelligible differentia applied to experience-based weightage in public recruitment?
It is applied by identifying a distinct class of candidates—such as those trained in a state's specific rural, tribal, or arid zones—whose specialized knowledge and training differ from those with experience in other states. (Para 20 , 21 )
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In the lead matter in this bunch of appeals, the appellants assail the order dated 13.08.2019, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 837 of 2019, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, challenging the order of the Single Judge of the High Court dated 28.08.2018. The Single Judge of the High Court vide the said order had allowed the writ petitions filed by the appellants and directed the respondent-State to grant bonus marks to the appellants herein, who have worked under the National Health Mission Schemes (hereinafter referred to as “NHM”) and National Rural Health Mission Schemes (hereinafter referred to as “NRHM”) in States other than the State of Rajasthan.
3. Appellants in civil appeals arising out of the connected Special Leave Petitions viz. SLP (C) Nos. 7341-7345 of 2020, SLP (C) Nos. 8155-8161 of 2020 and SLP (C) Nos. 13124-13126 of 2020 are similarly situated candidates, who were originally writ petitioners before the Single Judge of the High Court, seeking similar reliefs as the appellants in the lead matter. The Single Judge had dismissed the said writ petitions vide a common order dated 29.08.2019. The appellants herein preferred appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench vide common order dated 23.03.2020, relying on the impugned judgment rendered in the lead matter, dismissed the appeals. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court.
4. The appellants in civil appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6142-6144 of 2021 are another set of similarly placed candidates. They have approached this Court, being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dated 28.02.2019, thereby dismissing their appeals, challenging the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the Single Judge, whereby two separate writ petitions were dismissed.
5. All these appeals are heard together.
6. For the sake of convenience, the facts in civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No 24434 of 2019 are referred to for consideration.
The State of Rajasthan has framed rules known as Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Services (Amendment) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”). Rule 19 of the said Rules reads thus:
“19. Scrutiny of Applications - The Appointing Authority shall scrutinize the applications received by it and require as many candidates qualified for appointment under these rule as seem to it desirable for interview:
Provided that in case of appointment to the post of Nurse Compounder Junior Grade, the merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of marks obtained in such qualifying examination specified in the Schedule appended to the rules and bonus marks as may be specified by State Government having regard to the length of experience on similar work under the Government, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, as the case may be.
Provided further that the decision of the Appointing Authority, as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate, shall be final.”
7. The respondent-State of Rajasthan has issued a notification on 30.05.2018, thereby providing that such of the 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. For 1 year of experience, the bonus marks will be 10, for 2 years of experience the bonus marks will be 20 and for 3 years of experience it will be 30. The advertisement also provided that only such of the candidates who were having experience certificate from the competent authority as m
