##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:14696-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1790/2025

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of

Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, State Health And Family Welfare Institution, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Additional Director (Non Gazetted), Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya

Bhawan, Jaipur, ----Appellants

Versus

1. Jitendra Kumar S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad, Aged About 35 Years, R/o C-35, Jawahar Colony, Patan Road, Tehsil

Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar.

2. Krishna Kumar Nagar S/o Shri Jodhraj Nagar, Aged About

37 Years, R/o Radi Ke Balaji Marg, Ward No. 29, District Jhalawar

3. Bharat Singh Jhala S/o Shri Hate Singh Jhala, Aged About

33 Years, R/o E 72, Indra Colony, Shiv Bhagwan Ji Ke Mandir Ke Samne, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar

4. Dinesh Kumar Chauhan S/o Shri Ramprasad Chauhan, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Plot No. 24/2, Aishwarya Nagar, Mela Maidan Ke Samne, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District

Jhalawar.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG.

For Respondent(s) : -----

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

30/03/2026

1. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the controversy involved in the present appeal is no more res-integra

(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 02:40:40 PM)

(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 09:06:33 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14696-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1790/2025] and it is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Savita Manmiya (D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No.63/2022) and other connected appeals on

12.03.2025. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:

"8. This Court finds that the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court has gone into the fact that Rule 19 clause (7) clearly requires that the bonus marks can be given towards any work which is done under the employment of the State Government, that is of similar nature, thus, entitling the concerned candidate

for award of bonus marks.

9. This Court further finds that Condition No.1 of clause (7) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 itself is very clear that the ambit of the bonus marks is large and includes every employee of the State Government who has rendered similar nature of work for

the purpose of bonus marks.

10. The experience in the government hospital has been taken into account by the learned Single Judge so also the fact that the writ petitioners worked as Nursing Tutor cum Clinical Instructor, while also discharging the duties of Nurse Grade II was similar in

nature.

11. This Court also finds that the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has reproduced the job charts of Tutor/Senior Nursing Officer and has compared the same with the entitlement

of bonus marks of the persons discharging similar duties.

12. This Court further finds that the learned Single Judge has also noted that the Indian Nursing Council has offered dual appointment of teaching and discharging the actual duties in hospital for particular post; this could be easily akin to the Collegiate Doctors in the medical stream, where the doctors

teach as well as man the hospital at senior level.

13. This Court also finds the job responsibilities have been dealt with by the learned Single Judge at length. The learned Single Judge has rightly delved into the details of discharge of duties and also ambit of clause (7) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965, whereby job of the similar nature under the State Government is

entitled for bonus marks.

14. Since this Court is in agreement with the orders impugned passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in the writ petitions and the controversy involved in the aforesaid

(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 02:40:40 PM)

(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 09:06:33 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14696-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1790/2025]

original application dismissed by the learned Tribunal, is also identical, therefore, this Court is also not