Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 918
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.
Praveen Kumar and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 13039, 17452, 20924 of 2018 and 739, 924, 1067, 10697, 10801, 10810, 10892, 10967, 11279, 11344, 11379, 11381, 11412, 11445, 11461, 11499, 11513, 11516, 11517, 11566, 11960, 11970, 11997, 12014, 12025, 12086, 12109, 12130, 12226, 12295, 12325, 12335, 12401, 12432, 12442, 12477, 12495, 12754, 12761, 12835, 12876, 12876, 13519, 13846 of 2019
Decided On : 29-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mahendra Kumar Saini, Ram Pratap Saini, Narpat Singh Shekhawat, Iliyas Khan, Mamraj, Muniesh Bhardwaj, Tanveer Ahamad, Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Sanjay Mehla, Anoop Agarwal, Arpit Srivastava, Devi Singh Choudhary, Anoop Dhand, Khurshid Ahmed Khan, Suresh Kumar, Vinod Kumar Sharma, Komal Kumari Giri.
For the Respondents: Harshal Tholia, Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, Vivek Tyagi.
The State Government has the discretion to fix the criteria for recruitment, including the grant of bonus marks, and such classification is permissible under the law, based on intelligible differentia, having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
Headnote:
BONUS MARKS - NURSE GRADE-II - NRHM - RAJASTHAN - EXPERIENCE OUTSIDE STATE - DISCRIMINATION - ARTICLE 14 - CLASSIFICATION - REASONABLE DIFFERENTIA - RATIONAL NEXUS - STATE POLICY - GRANT OF BONUS MARKS - BENEFIT - NO RIGHT - RULE 19 OF RAJASTHAN MEDICAL & HEALTH SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES, 1965 - AMENDMENTS - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who had worked under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) scheme in the State of Haryana, challenged the exclusion of their experience from consideration for the purpose of awarding bonus marks for appointment to the post of Nurse Grade-II in Rajasthan. They argued that the amendment to Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, which allowed for the grant of bonus marks to candidates with experience in NRHM, did not restrict such experience to the State of Rajasthan. They also relied on previous judgments of the Rajasthan High Court that had held that experience gained in NRHM schemes, irrespective of the State, was eligible for bonus marks.
Finding of the Court:
The Rajasthan High Court held that the State Government was entitled to grant bonus marks to candidates who had worked in the State of Rajasthan under the NRHM scheme, and that such a classification was permissible under the law, based on intelligible differentia, having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The Court found that the State Government had a legitimate interest in giving preference to candidates who had worked in the State of Rajasthan, as they would be more familiar with the health care needs and issues of the people of Rajasthan. The Court also held that the grant of bonus marks was a benefit that could not be claimed as a matter of right, and that the State Government was within its domain to fix the criteria for recruitment.
Issues: 1. Whether the exclusion of experience gained outside the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of awarding bonus marks for appointment to the post of Nurse Grade-II in Rajasthan was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the State Government was entitled to grant bonus marks to candidates who had worked in the State of Rajasthan under the NRHM scheme, even though the amendment to Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, did not specifically restrict such experience to the State of Rajasthan? 3. Whether the grant of bonus marks was a benefit that could be claimed as a matter of right, or whether the State Government had the discretion to fix the criteria for recruitment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The classification made by the State Government, which allowed for the grant of bonus marks to candidates with experience in NRHM in the State of Rajasthan, was based on intelligible differentia and had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely, to give preference to candidates who were more familiar with the health care needs and issues of the people of Rajasthan. 2. The State Government was entitled to grant bonus marks to candidates who had worked in the State of Rajasthan under the NRHM scheme, even though the amendment to Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, did not specifically restrict such experience to the State of Rajasthan. 3. The grant of bonus marks was a benefit that could not be claimed as a matter of right, and the State Government had the discretion to fix the criteria for recruitment.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, upholding the State Government's decision to exclude the petitioners' experience gained outside the State of Rajasthan from consideration for the purpose of awarding bonus marks for appointment to the post of Nurse Grade-II in Rajasthan.
JUDGMENT :
Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.
1. The instant batch of writ petitions involves common issue and as such, all the writ petitions are decided by the common order, as per the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. The seminal question for consideration before the court is in respect of award of bonus marks for appointment on the post of Nurse Grade-II to the candidates working under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) in other States outside the State of Rajasthan.
3. The facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11379/2019 are taken as a lead case to decide the present controversy. The petitioner Praveen Kumar has pleaded in his writ petition that he had applied for the post of Nurse Grade-II in pursuance of the advertisement dated 30.05.2018 inviting applications from the eligible candidates. The petitioner has pleaded that he possesses the requisite qualification of Senior Secondary and diploma in GNM and he is duly registered with the Rajasthan Nursing Council, which makes him entitled for appointment on the post of Nurse Grade-II. The petitioner has pleaded that selection on the post of Nurse Grade-II is to be made on the basis of the marks obtained in qualifying academic examination or professional examination or both, as specified in the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Rules of 1965") and such bonus marks, as may be specified by the State Government having regard to length of experience on similar work under the Government, National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and Medicare Relief Society.
4. The petitioner has pleaded that for award of bonus marks towards length of experience, an amendment was made by the State Government under the Rules of 1965 vide amendment Notification dated 06.02.2013, according to which, the candidates who are working under the Government, NRHM and Medicare Relief Society are entitled for award of bonus marks.
5. The petitioner has pleaded that he was having an experience of one year, eight months and one day, of working on the post of Staff Nurse (which is equivalent to the post of Nurse Grade-II) in NRHM scheme in the District Narnaul, State of Haryana. The petitioner has pleaded that the experience certificate was issued to him by the competent authority of NRHM of the State of Haryana and as such, two years experience of working in a nationalized scheme, was included in Rule 19 for award of bonus marks.
6. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent-employer published a list dated 17.06.2019 whereby they called the candidates for documents verification and the said list did not include the name of the petitioner despite having the experience of working of more than one year on the post of Staff Nurse in NRHM Scheme in the State of Haryana. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent-employer has committed discrimination in award of bonus marks between the candidates working in the NRHM Scheme in the State of Rajasthan and in the States, other than State of Rajasthan. The petitioner has pleaded that after publication of the list excluding the name of the petitioner, he submitted objections/representation before the respondents, since no heed has been paid, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition.
7. The petitioner has pleaded that the amendment Notification dated 06.02.2013, nowhere mentioned that benefit of experience was to be given to only those candidates who are working in the NRHM Scheme in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner has also referred to an order dated 18.11.2013 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16545/2013, Mahesh Kumar Yadav and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another and connected writ petitions, whereby this court has declared that the persons who are working in the NRHM Scheme irrespective of the State, will be eligible for award of bonus marks, as per Rule 19 of the Rules, 1965.
8. The petitioner has also mad
