Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1392
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
S. Ravindra Bhat and Pushpendra Singh Bhati, JJ.
State Of Rajasthan, Secretary, Department Of Ayurved, Govt Of Rajasthan, Jaipur - Appellant
Versus
Daulat Ram - Respondent
Special Appeal Writ No. 673 of 2019, 273 of 2019, 502 of 2019
Decided On : 30-07-2019
Anil Kumar Gaur, Advocate, Anupam Gopal Vyas, Advocate, Ripudaman Singh, Advocate, Yashpal Khileree, Advocate, Anil Vyas, Advocate, Amit Gaur, Advocate
The State is entitled to choose whom to accord the benefit of bonus marks.
Headnote:
BONUS MARKS - RECRUITMENT - RAJASTHAN AYURVEDIC, UNANI, HOMEOPATHY AND NATUROPATHY SUBORDINATE SERVICE (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2013, RULE 19 - 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.
Fact of the Case:
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.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned judgments are in error and are accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
Issues: Whether the State can fashion its Rules and policies to grant benefits to specified or particular individuals having regard to the needs of its departments.
Ratio Decidendi: The award of bonus marks is a benefit and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The State can then fashion its Rules and policies to grant such benefits to specified or particular individuals having regard to the needs of its departments.
Final Decision: The impugned judgments are set aside. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, C. J. - 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., (2014) 2 WLN(Raj) 13 , which was affirmed by the Division Bench in 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 states as follows :-
"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 obta
