Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Indrajit Mahanty, JJ.
The State of Rajasthan, Thorugh The Secretary To The Government, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur - Appellant
Versus
Tej Singh S/o Deep Singh - Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 315 of 2019
Decided On : 10-12-2019
For the Appellants : Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur
For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Kumar Bohra
The State has the discretion to fashion its policies to grant benefits to specified individuals having regard to the needs of its departments. The grant of bonus marks is a benefit and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
Headnote:
BONUS MARKS - RECRUITMENT PROCESS - RAJASTHAN AYURVEDIC, UNANI, HOMEOPATHY AND NATUROPATHY SUBORDINATE SERVICE (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2013, RULE 19 - INTERPRETATION - STATE'S DISCRETION - ARBITRARINESS - EMPLOYEES OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND AIDED BODIES - EXCLUSION FROM BONUS MARKS - VALIDITY
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were working in different classes of institutions such as University, NGOs, and Ayurvedic Hospitals, challenged the State's refusal to award them bonus marks in the recruitment process for the post of Nurse Grade-II. They argued that the State's decision was arbitrary and violated the principle of equality.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the State's decision to grant bonus marks only to candidates with experience in four specified categories of institutions was not arbitrary. The Court reasoned that the State had a legitimate interest in fashioning its policies to grant benefits to specified individuals having regard to the needs of its departments. The Court also held that the exclusion of employees of State Universities and aided bodies from the bonus marks scheme was not discriminatory or arbitrary, as the State was entitled to choose whom to accord the benefit.
Issues: 1. Whether the State's decision to grant bonus marks only to candidates with experience in four specified categories of institutions was arbitrary. 2. Whether the exclusion of employees of State Universities and aided bodies from the bonus marks scheme was discriminatory or arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the State's decision to grant bonus marks only to candidates with experience in four specified categories of institutions was not arbitrary. The Court reasoned that the State had a legitimate interest in fashioning its policies to grant benefits to specified individuals having regard to the needs of its departments. 2. The Court also held that the exclusion of employees of State Universities and aided bodies from the bonus marks scheme was not discriminatory or arbitrary, as the State was entitled to choose whom to accord the benefit.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgments.
ORDER :
Though the matter has been listed for orders, with the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. Learned counsel for the parties in unison submit that the matter is covered by the judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Daulat Ram & Ors. [D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.673/2019 and other connected matters, decided on 30.07.2019] wherein following judgment has been passed:
“1. For the reasons stated, the application filed for condonation of delay in SAW No.502/2019 is allowed.
With the consent of the parties, the appeals were finally heard.
2. The question involved in these cases is whether the respondents-writ petitioners are entitled to claim bonus marks in the recruitment process notified by the State of Rajasthan, to the post of Nurse Grade-II. The advertisement dated 06.10.2018 indicated that the bonus marks would be awarded to candidates with experience of working in four categories of institutions [Clause-7(2) of the advertisement dated 06.10.2018]. The four categories were – those who worked with the State of Rajasthan under the National Rural Health Mission (in short ‘NRHM’);employees who worked under the Chief Minister BPL Scheme, individuals appointed under the State Jeevan Raksha Kosh and those who had worked with the State of Rajasthan in its departments, with similar experience. The advertisement is open and does not place any restrictions as to the manner of appointment to these four classes of institutions (i.e. contractual, temporary, through placement agency etc.).
3. The writ petitioners approached the Court contending arbitrariness on the part of the State because it refused to award them bonus marks, as they had not worked in any of the four listed categories of institutions. The writ petitioners were working in different classes of institutions, such as University, NGOs and Ayurvedic Hospitals, etc.
4. The learned Single Judge after considering the terms of the advertisement and the previous orders of this Court allowed the writ petitions. The impugned orders took note of the judgment in Manohar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2014 (2) WLN 13 (Raj.), which was affirmed by the Division Benchin State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Manohar Singh & Ors. (D.B.S.A.W. No.281/2013), decided on 27.1.2014.
5. The State argues that the judgment in Manohar Singh cannot be considered as binding precedent. It points out that the rule which renders persons with similar experience eligible for bonus marks i.e. Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Subordinate Service (Amendment)Rules, 2013 enables grant of bonus marks to only those specified category of candidates who possess the requisite experience in listed institutions and none else. Learned AAG relies upon the Division Bench ruling in Gaurav Kumar Sen & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.24245/2018), decided on 29.10.2018.
6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents relied upon a circular/office order of the Government of Rajasthan dated 8.2.2016 to say that the decision in Manohar Singh and other subsequent judgments of Single Judges as well as Division Benches were accepted when the State Government unequivocally declared that all local authorities and Corporations who fell within the description of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution were covered within the expression “State Government”. It was argued besides, that the benefit of such bonus marks has been hitherto extended in the past in another Division Bench ruling in Yadvendra Shandilya & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10246/2013), decided on 26.2.2016.
7. As stated earlier, whether to grant bonus marks, and to what extent and the conditions governing such grant, are spelt out in the advertisement [in the present case – para 7(2)]. Gaurav Kumar, the latest Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 29.10.2018 considered the validity of Rule 19, which s
