Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 347
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sangeet Lodha and Mahendar Kumar Goyal, JJ.
Trapti Pandey And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Others - Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1341/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1395/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1398/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1402/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1424/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1426/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1433/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1435/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1447/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1448/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1450/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1460/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1471/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1476/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1477/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1480/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1483/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1490/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1498/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1500/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1512/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1519/2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1597 of 2019 and D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1755 of 2019
Decided On : 23-03-2020
Shri Iliyas Khan, Shri Ram Pratap Saini and Shri Mahendra Kumar Saini, Adv, for the Appellants; Shri Harshal Tholia on behalf of Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, Adv, for the Respondents
The State Government is well within its right to give preference to the engagement of people on the basis of residence and/or local criteria for the implementation of the NRHM scheme.
Headnote:
BONUS MARKS - EXPERIENCE UNDER NRHM - RULE 19 OF RAJASTHAN MEDICAL AND HEALTH SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES, 1965 - The State Government is well within its right to extend the benefit of bonus marks to the candidates working in the State of Rajasthan alone even under the Centralised Scheme such as NRHM.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, who had gained experience by working under the NRHM scheme in States other than Rajasthan, were denied the benefit of bonus marks for appointment to the post of Nurse Gr.II under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965. They challenged this decision, arguing that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the State Government's decision to confine the benefit of bonus marks to candidates working in Rajasthan was based on intelligible differentia and had a reasonable nexus with the object of rendering medical facilities to the people of Rajasthan. It also held that the appellants did not form a well-defined separate class and that confining the weightage of the bonus marks to such class was not arbitrary or discriminatory.
Issues: Whether the State Government's decision to confine the benefit of bonus marks to candidates working in Rajasthan was arbitrary and discriminatory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Full Bench judgment in Rajkumar v. State of Rajasthan, which held that the State Government is well within its right to give preference to the engagement of people on the basis of residence and/or local criteria for the implementation of the NRHM scheme. The court also noted that the appellants did not form a well-defined separate class and that confining the weightage of the bonus marks to such class was not arbitrary or discriminatory.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, holding that the State Government's decision was not illegal or perverse and that there was no merit in the appeals.
JUDGMENT
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - All these intra court appeals have been filed against the judgement dated 29.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the writ petitions preferred by the appellants herein seeking benefit of bonus marks on the basis of their experience gained under National Rural Health Mission Scheme (for short-the NRHM) in States other than State of Rajasthan, have been dismissed.
2. The facts in brief, as emerge from perusal of the record are that the respondent-State of Rajasthan vide advertisement dated 30.05.2018, invited applications for appointment on the post of Nurse Gr.II under Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (for short-the Rules of 1965). Contending that the appellants possessed the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Nurse Gr.II; but, were excluded from the final merit list inasmuch as they were not extended the benefit of bonus marks awardable on the basis of length of experience by working under NRHM besides other schemes as contemplated under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 on the premise that they have gained the experience under the scheme in States other than State of Rajasthan whereas the benefit was confined by the respondents to the candidates having gained experience under the scheme working in the State of Rajasthan only, the writ petitions were filed. The appellants contended that since the NRHM scheme is a Central Government scheme, the respondents acted in violation of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by confining the benefit of experience to the candidates working under this scheme in the State of Rajasthan only. The appellants relied upon the order dated 18.11.2013 passed by single bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16545/2013, Mahesh Kumar Yadav v. The State of Rajasthan , the order dated 9.2.2016 passed by the division bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12942/2015, Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan , the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the single bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13230/2018, Ashok Kumar Saini v. State of Rajasthan , which has been upheld by the division bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.42/2019, Shiv Kumar Meena v. State of Rajasthan and other connected appeals vide order dated 28.02.2019 to impress upon this Court that the issue as to the award of bonus marks to a candidate on account of experience of working under NRHM anywhere in India is no more res integra as it has been held by this Court in the aforesaid cases that no discrimination can be made by the respondents on this count.
3. The learned Single Judge has, vide its impugned judgement dated 29.8.2019, dismissed the writ petitions. Hence these appeals.
4. Assailing the impugned judgement passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsels appearing for the appellants submitted that the same is not sustainable in the light of the judgements of the division benches of this Court in the cases of Jagdish Prasad (supra) and Shiv Kumar Meena (supra). It was contended that since the NRHM is a Central Government Scheme implemented by various State Governments, the persons working under this Scheme could not have been discriminated upon for award of bonus marks on account of place of work and such discrimination is hit by the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgement as well as action of the respondents in subjecting the appellants to hostile discrimination may be quashed and the appeals be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the respondent-State was well within its competence to confine the benefit of bonus marks only to the employees working in the State of Rajasthan even under the NRHM scheme inasmuch as such candidates are acquainted with the health care issues of the people of Rajasthan and in particular medical care which is required a
