[2025:RJ-JD:1221]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4203/2018 Pukhraj Purohit And Ors.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan And Ors.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh with Ms. Saumya Choudhary Ms. Ananya Rathore..

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Jain for Mr. Mukesh Dave, Dy.G.C.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order (Oral)

08/01/2025

1. Petitioners herein, inter-alia, seek directions commanding the respondents to accord them appointment to the post of Nurse Grade-II, based on the work experience certificate dated 06.10.2008, pursuant to an advertisement dated 04.05.2007 (Annex.1).

2. Briefly speaking, relevant facts are that recruitment of 2,500 GNM posts was advertised on 04.05.2007 for Sub-health Centers in 24 districts under National Rural Health Mission. The petitioners, being eligible, applied for these positions.

2.1 Although the respondents issued an office order on 06.10.2008 appointing selected candidates, but the petitioners were not included as the selection was made intermittently. Various writ petitions were also filed during that period. Subsequently, by this Court’s Larger Bench judgment dated

07.12.2016 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6207/2009, the respondents were directed to make the selection at the district level. Following this decision, the respondents issued appointment orders even to the petitioners on 02.12.2016. The petitioners joined the services as GNMs.

2.2 In 2013, the respondents issued a notification for regular GNM recruitment by granting bonus marks for past experience. While similarly situated candidates appointed in 2008 were awarded bonus marks, but the petitioners, appointed later in 2016, were denied equivalent bonus marks w.e.f. same date as the ones appointed in 2008. Hence, the instant petition.

3. Opposing the petition, stand taken by respondents is that advertisement dated 26.02.2013 for filling 15,773 posts of Nurse Grade-II, with bonus marks provided for experience certificates ranging from one, two and three years, i.e. 5 marks for one year, 10 marks for two years and 15 marks for more than three years of experience.

3.1. The Department of Finance reduced the number of vacancies to 11,259, and the recruitment was conducted for these 11,259 posts. It is important to note that the advertisement clearly mentioned that the number of vacancies could be increased or reduced.

3.2. In the 2018-19 budget session, the State Government announced 4,514 additional posts of Nurse Gr. II. Later, the Department of Finance sanctioned 2,043 more posts on 29.05.2018. A fresh advertisement was then issued on 30.05.2018 for filling a total of 6,557 posts. Bonus marks were granted to all eligible candidates as per the rules.

3.3. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking appointments based on the advertisement dated 26.02.2013. However, the claim for appointment under the 26.02.2013 advertisement is without merit. Hence petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence from this Court.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard rival contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Without any further ado, at the very outset, I may observe that the petitioners are seeking notional benefit of past 10 years of service prior to their appointment on the ground that, though they were throughout available to serve, but for no fault of them, they were kept out of service, as in the earlier result declared by the respondents for no fault of theirs, they were not selected. Subsequently, in the revised result, they stood selected. The contention being that the petitioners, having successfully challenged the earlier result, stood vindicated that they were meritorious to be selected at the first instance. Therefore, being throughout available to work, they ought to get the notional benefit for the period they remained out of service.

6. The said controversy, in fact, has already been put to rest b