JUDGMENT

1. Heard.

2. This appeal arises out of the order dated 16.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the petitioner's claim for grant of bonus marks has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner is entitled to be included in the category of Institution, as provided in Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') read with Clause 7 of the advertisement, is not correct in law. He would submit that the petitioner is working in an institute, which is under the Central Government. Therefore, there is no reason why the petitioner should be excluded from the benefit of bonus marks. He would submit that in the case of Satya Dev Bhagaur & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.(Civil Appeal No. 1422 of 2022), the Supreme Court has held that the benefit of bonus marks to those who are engaged in the National Rural Health Mission or State Health Mission, are entitled to bonus marks. He would further submit that other similarly situated employees have been granted benefit but the petitioner has bee