Experience relevant to job duties qualifies for bonus marks; distinctions in job designations do not detract from similarity in functional responsibilities.

ORDER :

MUNNURI LAXMAN, J.

1. At the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.07.2025 (Annex.10) rejecting the petitioner’s claim for the award of bonus marks for the experience gained by the petitioner in a similar kind of post for which, the advertisement was issued.

3. By the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner for the award of bonus marks was rejected on the ground that the experience of the post held by petitioner is not similar to the post advertised.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was working as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) from 25.07.2014 to 30.11.2022. The eligibility criteria for the said post was ANM/GNM or B.Sc. (Nursing). In the advertisement issued by the respondent, it is also clearly mentioned that the persons who are working in 108 ambulance services and performing similar work to the post which is advertised are also entitled for grant of bonus marks. Petitioner applied for appointment under the OBC category by claiming the required bonus marks, particularly, on the strength of work experience certificate, for the duties similar to the post to that of advertised post. The respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for grant of bonus marks holding that the certificate of work experience is not similar to that of the post advertised.

5. The case of the respondents, as per their reply filed in the present case, is that the post advertised relates to Female Health Workers in the Medical and Health Department and the qualification for the said post is ANM registered with the Rajasthan Nursing Council. The advertisement in question and the Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1965’) enable the concerned Authority to award the bonus marks based on various criteria including the criteria of working in the similar kind of post to that of advertised post. According to the respondents, the nature of duties to be performed by the Female Health Workers pertains to pre or post natal care which is not expected to be performed by the persons working in the post of Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) deputed on 108 ambulance emergency services. Therefore, the work experience gained by the employee cannot be said to be equivalent or similar to the work to be performed and to be filled in by the advertised post. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for the bonus marks. The respondents have tried to justify the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for grant of bonus marks and prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although the designation of the post may be different, however, all the pre and post natal emergency care is required to be attended to, while the patient is being shifted from various places to the Medical Institutions on emergency basis. The minimum qualification for the said post was ANM and higher post like, GNM or B.Sc. (Nursing) were also made eligible to apply for such post. According to him, the duties required to be performed by the petitioner on 108 ambulance emergency services are almost similar to the post advertised except the duration which may be vary. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for award bonus marks on the basis of work experience is not sustainable.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the duty chart of the duties of a Female Health Worker and the Emergency Medical Technician are entirely different. As per the duty chart of the duties to be performed by the Female Health Workers, required to discharge the work of pre and post natal requirements of the patients in the hospitals, which experience was not gained by the petitioner, while working as EMT on the 108 ambulance emer