The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the relevant rules and advertisement provisions regarding the entitlement to bonus marks for employees of Ayurveda Research Institutes under the Central Government.

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 been subjected to hostile discrimination, which was not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the engagement of the appellant was in M.S. Regional Ayurveda Research Institute under the CCRAS, Ministry of Ayush, Government of India and not in any particular scheme, much less NPCDCS scheme, in which one Dinesh Sepat was engaged and was granted bonus marks.

5. The appellant's claim for grant of bonus marks is based on his contractual engagement and experience acquired in such capacity during the period 01.06.2019 to 03.12.2020 in M.S. Regional Ayurveda Research Institute under CCRAS, Ministry of Ayush, Government of India.

6. A perusal of Rule 19 of the Rules read with Clause 7 of the advertisement would show that the Institute, where the petitioner is working, is not included in the aforesaid provision.

7. In fact, we find that the validity of the Rules on such ground that those engaged in Regional Ayurveda Research Institute run under the aegis of Central Government, were arbitrarily excluded, was examined by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gaurav Kumar Sen & Ors. V/s The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24245/2018 decided on 29.10.2018), followed in another judgment in the case of Ratan Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13131/2018 decided on 05.08.2019). Some of the petitioners in Gaurav Kumar Sen (supra) were holding experience under the National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur and other Regional Research Institute at different places. This Court repelled the challenge to the validity of the rule on the ground that the rule seeks to arbitrarily exclude the employees of such institute for grant of bonus marks on the basis of the experience acquired while working in such institute.

8. As far as parity claimed vis-a-vis Dinesh Sepat is concerned, said employee has been admitted to benefit of bonus marks on the ground of he having acquired working experience in NPCDCS scheme while he was posted in Community Health Center under the State as Ayush Pharmacist (Ayurveda). The State circular dated 15.11.2021 clarifies this position that in such cases the benefit of bonus marks would be available.

9. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Satya Dev Bhagaur (supra) is misplaced on facts because that was the case where the persons, who were engaged in National Rural Health Mission-National Health Mission, were held entitled to bonus marks upon interpretation of provisions contained in Rule 19 of the Rules.

10. In view of the aforesaid consideration, the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be against the provisions of law.

11. Therefore, we do not find any merit i