SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Raj) 1529

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR 
ARUN MONGA, J.
Suraj Singh Ranawat S/o Nand Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21588 of 2024
Decided On : 07-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vivek Firoda
For the Respondents: Tanuj Jain, Mukesh Dave

The court established that experience as a Nursing Tutor-cum-Clinical Instructor qualifies for bonus marks in recruitment, as duties performed are similar to those of a Nurse Gr.II.

Headnote:

(A) Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 - Rule 19 - Recruitment process for Nursing Officer - Petitioner sought bonus marks for experience as Nursing Tutor-cum-Clinical Instructor - Court found that duties performed were similar to those of Nurse Gr.II, thus entitled to bonus marks - Respondents' refusal based on technical grounds deemed iniquitous. (Paras 1, 2, 27, 30)

(B) Right to bonus marks - Emanates from Rule 19, which allows for consideration of similar work experience - Court emphasized that the expression 'similar work' should not be narrowly interpreted. (Paras 17, 28)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for the Nursing Officer position, claiming bonus marks for experience as Nursing Tutor-cum-Clinical Instructor, which was denied by respondents despite similar past rulings. (Paras 1, 2.1, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioner’s experience was indeed similar to that of a Nurse Gr.II, warranting the award of bonus marks. (Paras 26, 30)

Issues: Whether the petitioner’s experience as Nursing Tutor-cum-Clinical Instructor qualifies for bonus marks under the recruitment rules. (Paras 19, 28)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner’s responsibilities were comparable to those of a Nurse Gr.II, and the refusal to grant bonus marks was unjustified. (Paras 26, 30)

Result: Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to grant bonus marks and consider the petitioner for appointment.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner herein, inter-alia, seeks an appropriate writ, order and/or direction to the respondents to consider experience of the petitioner as Nursing Tutor-cum-Clinical Instructor at par with Nursing Officer and award him bonus marks in the recruitment process for appointment on the post of Nursing Officer initiated vide advertisement dated 05.05.2023 (Annex.5).

2. The brief facts first. Pursuant to the advertisement, as above, the petitioner, being eligible, applied for the post in question. As per the advertisement, the candidates were entitled to bonus marks for the experience gained by them while doing similar nature of work as to the advertised post.

2.1 The petitioner was working on the post of Nursing Tutor-cum-Clinical Instructor through placement agency at G.N.M. Training Center, Sri Sanwaliya Ji Government General Hospital, Chittorgarh. He has been given an experience certificate 02.06.2023 (Annex.6) issued by the Chief Medical Officer, General Hospital, Chittorgarh and duly verified by the Joint Director, Medical & Health Services, Zone Udaipur.

2.2 After document verification, the respondents issued provisional list of selected candidates on 07.10.2023 (Annex.9) which did not include the name of the petitioner as the respondents did not award bonus marks to the petitioner against his experience certificate. Hence, this petition.

3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and perused the case file.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset that similar nature of controversy in the case of Savita Manmiya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2835/2020) was decided by a coordinate Bench vide order and judgment dated 16.02.2021 wherein it was directed to grant bonus marks on the basis of his experience as Nursing Tutor-cum-Clinical Instructor. The petitioner is also since working on the same post and performed same nature of work, yet the respondents have not awarded bonus marks to him.

5. On a Court query posed, learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that indeed the facts involved in the present case as well as the controversy raised herein is similar to the one raised in the case of Savita Manmiya (supra).

6. The observations made by this Court in the case of Savita Manmiya (supra), being apposite, is reproduced as under:-

"17. Right of claiming bonus marks emanates from Rule 19 of the Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereafter, “Rules of 1965”). Clause No. 7 of the advertisement, is somewhat reproduction of Rule 19, which reads as under:-

^^7- vuqHko ds vk/kkj ij cksul vad %& jktLFkku fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; v/khuLFk lsok fu;e 1965 ;Fkk la'kksf/kr fu;eksa ds fu;e 19 esa mYysf[kr izko/kkukas ds rgr~ vH;fFkZ;ksa dks cksul vad ns; gSA

¼1½ vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ik=rk dh tkWp ,oa nLrkostksa ds lR;kiu ds le; vkosnd dks eq[;ea=h chih,y thou j{kkdks"k] ,uvkj,p,e esfMds;j fjyhQ lkslk;Vh] ,M~l dUVªksy lkslk;Vh] jk"Vªh; {k; fu;a=.k dk;ZØe] >kykokM+ vLirky ,oa fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; lkslk;Vh] lesfdr jksx fuxjkuh ifj;kstuk] jkT; LokLF; ifjokj dY;k.k laLFkku (SIHFW) ,oa jkT; ljdkj ds v/khu leku dk;Z djus dk foHkkx ds vf/kd`r izkf/kdkjh }kjk fu/kkZfjr izk:i esa tkjh vuqHko izek.k i= izLrqr djuk gksxkA ;g vuqHko izek.k i= foKkfir in ds fy;s vkWuykbZu vkosnu djus dh vafre frfFk ls iwoZ dk tkjh fd;k gqvk gksuk vko';d gSA vuqHko vof/k dh x.kuk foKfIr tkjh gksus dh frfFk rd dh tkosxhA vuqHko izek.k i= dk izk:i ^^v** layXu gSA foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr izk:i ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh izk:i esa tkjh fd;k x;k vuqHko izek.k i= ekU; ugha gksxkA

¼2½ jktLFkku ljdkj ds v/khu iz/kkukpk;Z ,oa fu;a=d jktdh; esfMdy dkWyst] iz/kkukpk;Z >kykokM+ gkWfLiVy ,.M esfMdy dkWyst lkslk;Vh] jktdh; MsUVy dkWyst] funs'kd] tu LokLF;@vkj-lh-,p-@eksckbZy lftZdy ;wfuV@vkb-bZ-lh@,M~l] v/kh{kd layXu fpfdRlky; lewg] ifj;kstuk funs'kd] ,u,p,e@,M~l] funs'kd vkjvkjlh] funs'kd SIHFW jkT; {k; jksx fu;a=.k vf/kdkjh] jkT; ds leLr eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh] leLr ftyk iztuu ,oa f'k'kq LokLF; vf/kdkjh]

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top