Experience as COVID Health Assistant Not 'Similar' to Pharmacist for Bonus Marks; Competent Authority's Certificate is Final: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-09-20

Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

COVID Health Assistant Experience Not Equivalent to Pharmacist for Bonus Marks: Rajasthan High Court Upholds State's Decision

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling on recruitment norms, has dismissed a writ petition filed by a Pharmacist aspirant, Divya Kumar, who sought bonus marks for his experience as a COVID Health Assistant (CHA). The court, led by Justice Anand Sharma, held that the assessment of 'similar work' by the competent administrative authority is paramount and cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless proven to be perverse or mala fide.

Case Background

The case originated from a recruitment drive for 2,859 Pharmacist posts advertised by the State Health and Family Welfare Institution on May 5, 2023. The selection criteria involved a merit list based on 70% of professional qualification marks and up to 30% in bonus marks for experience in "similar work" within state government health schemes.

The petitioner, Divya Kumar, had worked as a COVID Health Assistant (CHA) from July 2021 to March 2022. He applied for the Pharmacist post and claimed 15 bonus marks, arguing that his duties as a CHA, which included drug distribution, were similar to those of a Pharmacist. His claim was rejected by the Director of Medical & Health Services on March 11, 2025, prompting him to file the present writ petition.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Stance: The petitioner’s counsel argued that the nature of the work performed, not the job title, should determine eligibility for bonus marks. To support this, they presented an experience certificate from the Medical Officer Incharge of an Urban Primary Health Centre, which stated that Kumar had performed work similar to that of a Pharmacist. They contended that engaging in drug distribution during the pandemic brought the CHA's role within the scope of "similar work."

State's Rebuttal: Conversely, the respondents argued that the petitioner's claim was invalid. They pointed out that the certificate from the Medical Officer was issued by an unauthorized authority. The only valid certificate, issued by the competent Chief Medical & Health Officer (CMHO), Bharatpur, explicitly stated that the petitioner's work as a CHA was not similar to that of a Pharmacist.

The state's counsel further emphasized that the qualifications, statutory responsibilities, and training for a Pharmacist and a CHA are fundamentally different. Relying on Supreme Court precedents like Sajid Khan v. L. Rahmathullah and Union of India v. Uzair Imran & Others , they argued that administrative authorities are the best judges of experience equivalence and courts should not rewrite eligibility criteria.

Court's Analysis and Judgment

Justice Anand Sharma, after reviewing the arguments and records, sided with the respondents, dismissing the petition. The court's reasoning was built on several key points:

• Authority of Certificate: The court found that the only valid document for consideration was the certificate issued by the CMHO, as specified in the recruitment advertisement. This certificate clearly negated the petitioner's claim of having performed similar work.

• Distinction in Roles: The judgment drew a sharp distinction between the two roles. It noted, "A Pharmacist is a qualified Diploma Holder registered under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 entrusted with professional responsibilities... A COVID Health Assistant, on the other hand, was engaged temporarily during the pandemic crisis to perform auxiliary duties." The court concluded that a mere overlap in one function, like drug distribution, does not make the two posts equivalent.

• Judicial Restraint: Citing the Supreme Court, the High Court reiterated the principle of judicial restraint in matters of recruitment policy. It stated that determining factual equivalence of work experience falls within the domain of the competent authority, and this determination cannot be re-examined in writ jurisdiction without evidence of arbitrariness. The judgment noted, "Such disputed factual determination, when settled by the competent authority against the petitioner, cannot be re- examined in writ jurisdiction unless shown to be perverse or mala fide."

• Bonus Marks as a Policy Benefit: The court clarified that bonus marks are not a right but a policy benefit governed strictly by recruitment rules. Courts cannot expand the scope of these rules through judicial interpretation.

Final Decision

Finding no violation of the petitioner's legal or constitutional rights, the High Court concluded that the state's action in denying the bonus marks was not arbitrary or illegal but was in strict adherence to the recruitment rules. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as being "wholly devoid of merit."