Back
PPP-Mode Experience Valid For :
In a significant ruling for healthcare professionals, the has struck down the rejection of candidatures of Nursing Officers that were based on the "technical ground" of salary disbursement source. Justice Dr. Nupur Bhati affirmed that service rendered in government health institutions cannot be disregarded for calculation of experience-based simply because the remuneration was routed through an NGO or charitable trust under a .
Case Background: A Question of Eligibility The petitioners, working as Nursing Staff at the in Pali, had applied for recruitment as Nursing Officers under the cycle. While they successfully cleared the initial merit stages, their final candidature was placed on hold and eventually rejected in . The respondents reasoned that since the petitioners received their salaries from a charitable trust rather than directly from the State Government, their service could not be counted as "government experience."
The petitioners contended that they performed the exact same duties as their counterparts on the state payroll, worked against government-sanctioned posts, and served during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. They challenged the rejection, arguing that the mode of payment is an administrative nuance that should not override the tangible service rendered.
Arguments from the Fold The petitioner’s counsel emphasized that the authenticity of the experience was verified by the relevant medical authorities. Asserting that the controversy was , they relied upon the recent case of , where the judiciary held that denying based on the source of salary violated the object of the recruitment scheme.
Conversely, the State maintained that the petitioners were engaged under a PPP arrangement, which technically distinguished their employment from direct government service. However, faced with the clear set by the in Govind Dayma , the State acknowledged that the legal issue was substantially covered.
Legal Analysis: The Substance of Service Justice Nupur Bhati noted that the primary objective of rewarding for experience is to recognize the practical service rendered in government institutions. The judgment clarifies that an administrative arrangement—such as routing salary through a trust—does not alter the nature of the work performed.
The court made a crucial distinction: while the source of funds might be a factor if the genuineness of the service is in dispute, it cannot be used to invalidate an undisputed record of service.
Key Observations The judgment offers clear guidance on the interpretation of experience-based benefits:
-
"The object behind providing the benefit of for the purpose of experience in the recruitment process is to recognise and reward candidates who have acquired practical experience while rendering medical services in Government health institutions."
-
"Merely because the salary was routed through a charitable trust under an administrative arrangement sanctioned by the State Government cannot dilute or negate the experience so gained."
-
"The manning of a Government Hospital undeniably confers specialized and practical experience... such experience, therefore, cannot be discounted merely because certain financial contributions were made by an NGO."
Court’s Decision The court allowed the , quashing the order dated . The respondents have been directed to grant the petitioners their due based on their length of service. Furthermore, should the petitioners secure a place in the merit list after the inclusion of these marks, they are to be offered appointments as Nursing Officers within eight weeks. This decision sets a vital , ensuring that healthcare workers deployed through PPP projects are not penalized for the administrative structures of their employment.
