Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Roop Singh Meena S/O Shri Ramdayal Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan on 29 August, 2019
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11379/2019
Praveen Kumar Son Of Shri Ghisaram, Aged About 37 Years,
Resident Of Vpo Khandwa, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Admn.) Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
4. Mission Director, Nhm, Swasthya Bhawan, C- Scheme,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11344/2019
1. Ahmed Raza S/o Shri Ishaq Ahmed, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o Sipahi Mohalla, Udai Kalan Th. Gangapur City Distt.
Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
2. Sanjay Kumar Rathor S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Rathor,
Aged About 31 Years, R/o Nai Aabadi Kundla Road,
Chaumahla Th.gangdhar Distt. Jhalawar (Raj.)
3. Pramod Kumar Soni S/o Shri Om Prakash Soni, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Chechat Vill. Chechat
Th.ramganjmandi Distt. Kota (Raj.)
4. Mohammed Sazid S/o Shri Mohammed Ismaeel, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o Kidwai Colony, Dhanota Road Malpura
Th. Malpura Distt. Tonk (Raj.)
5. Nazeer Ahmad S/o Shri Abdul Naseer Ahmad, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Vill.uchawada Post Gulkhedi Th.aklera
Distt.jhalawar (Raj.)
6. Syed Abdul Majeed S/o Shri Syed Intzam Ali, Aged About
42 Years, R/o Kasaiyon Ki Masjid Ke Samne,malpura
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(2 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
Th.malpura Distt.tonk (Raj.)
7. Anwar Husain S/o Shri Mukrram Ali, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Moin Ki Chakki Ke Pass,mohalla Sadat,malpura
Th.malpura Distt. Tonk (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20924/2018
1. Bimala Kumari Nagar D/o Mansha Ram Nagar, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Vpo Baluhera, Tehsil Kanwas, District Kota,
Rajasthan.
2. Mukesh Kumar Malav S/o Sitaram Malav, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Vpo Bohat, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran,
Rajasthan.
3. Nazneen D/o Manzoor Ahamad, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Jama Masjid Ke Pass, Manohar Thana, Jhalawar,
Rajasthan.
4. Kum. Shyama Kumari D/o Durga Singh, Aged About 41
Years, R/o Anand Niwas, Bapu Colony, Rangpur Road,
Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota, Rajasthan.
5. Dhanraj Nagar S/o Jodhraj Nagar, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Vpo Kanwarpura Mandwalan, Tehsil Khanpur, District
Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 739/2019
1. Virendra Singh Yadav S/o Dharamveer Singh Yadav, Aged
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(3 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
About 35 Years, R/o Village Molawas, Post Jalawas, Tehsil
Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
2. Umender Kumar Jaiman S/o Raj Rajesh Kumar Jaiman,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Barodamev, Tehsil
Laxmangarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 924/2019
Dinesh Kumar Khadiya S/o Shri Ram Khadiya, Aged About 33
Years, R/o V/p Rampura, Via Pawata, Tehsil Kotputli, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1067/2019
Kavita Sharma D/o Radhey Shyam Sharma, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Plot No. 52, Tapadiya Farm Colony, Roteda Road, Kota
Junction, Kota, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10697/2019
Nasreen Bahlim D/o Shafi Mohammed, W/o Mohammed Nadeem,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o H.no.86, Subash Vihar, Anantpura,
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(4 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
District Kota, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10801/2019
Asha Jat D/o Kailash Chandra Jat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village Palthan Post Vasmandal Tehsil And District Pratapgarh,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10810/2019
1. Ashish Gautam S/o Ramesh Chand Gautam, Aged About
32 Years, R/o V/p Harnawada Shahji, Tehsil Chipabadod,
District Baran, Rajasthan.
2. Maniram Jat S/o Unkar Lal Jat, R/o Village Padaniya, Post
Shambhupura, Tehsil Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan.
3. Jitendra Kumar Chauhan S/o Mohan Lal Chauhan, R/o V/p
Richhawa, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
4. Dharmveer Singh S/o Jamna Ram, R/o 1/17, Housing
Board Colony, District Churu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(5 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10892/2019
1. Roop Singh Meena S/o Shri Ramdayal Meena, Aged About
32 Years, R/o Meena Mohalla,vill Post Uadi Kalan The.
Gangapur City Distt. Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
2. Shamim Bano Kathri D/o Shri Sirajdduin Kathari, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Chhapan Ji Ka Pal, Uniyara, District
Tonk (Raj.)
3. Juber Ahamed S/o Shri Abdul Mannan, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Ward No.12 Iman Chowk, Todarasingh Teh.
Tonk, Distt. Tonk (Raj.)
4. Muzahid Ahamad S/o Momin Ali, Aged About 43 Years,
R/o Mohalla Sadat Toda Road,malpura,tonk (Raj.)
5. Mohammed Zaheer S/o Shri Mohammed Shafi, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Near Syed Culb Ground, Mohalla
Sadat Toda Road,malpura Distt.tonk (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
4. The Mission Director, Nhm, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10967/2019
1. Ankit Kumar Shah S/o Shri Kantilal Jain, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Bahubali Colony, Bansawara, Th.bansawara
Distt.bansawara (Raj.)
2. Hemant Tyagi S/o Shri Virendra Tyagi, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Hardev Nagar ,dholpur,th.dholpur Distt.dholpur
(Raj.)
3. Richpal Singh S/o Shri Gopal Ram, Aged About 44 Years,
R/o Rajpura Th.degana Distt. Nagaur (Raj.)
4. Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Rameshwar Dayal, Aged About
31 Years, R/o 3/84 Mangal Vihar Colony, Saipau Raod,
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(6 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
Th.dholpur Distt.dholpur (Raj.)
5. Khinwraj Khichar S/o Shri Deva Ram Khichar, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Vill.sindlas Butati,th.degana Distt.nagaur
(Raj.)
6. Sunita Agrawal D/o Shri Ramavtar Gupta, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Shukla Colony, Nahar Road, Near Shiv Shiksha
Niketan, Th.gangapur City Distt. Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11279/2019
Ashok Kumar Tanwar S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Village And Post Shuklawas, Tehsil Kotputli, District
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Director (Admn.) Medical And Health Services,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11381/2019
Ghanshyam Pradhan Son Of Shri Kailash Chandra Pradhan, Aged
About 46 Years, Resident Of V/p Narainpur, District Alwar, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Admn.) Medical And Health
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(7 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
4. Mission Director, Nhm, Swasthya Bhawan, C- Scheme,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11412/2019
1. Dharmendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Munshi Lal Meena,
Aged About 36 Years, R/o Meena Mauhalla Vill.post Udai
Kalan Th.gangapur City Distt.sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
2. Ajay Kumar Sagar S/o Shri Tota Ram Sagar, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Bhim Nagar,tehsil Road Th. Sarmathura
Distt. Dholpur (Raj.)
3. Syed Motasham Naqvi S/o Shri Syed Salamat Ali, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o Mohalla Sadat, Malpura Th. Malpura
Distt. Tonk (Raj.)
4. Satvir Singh Kulkhandhya S/o Shri Gori Shanker Singh
Kulkhandhya, Aged About 35 Years, R/o C-115/116
Punarwas Colony Vill. Sagwara Th. Sagwara Distt.
Dungarpur (Raj.)
5. Nisha Patidar D/o Shri Amrit Lal Patidar, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Patidar Mohalla, Vill Post Chitri, Teh. Galiyakot,
Distt. Dungarpur (Raj.)
6. Jyoti Aheer D/o Shri Ram Prakash, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o 376, Pratap Nagar 1, Devil Arab Road Borkhera,
The.ladpura, Kota (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11445/2019
1. Manju Saini D/o Babulal Saini, W/o Arun Kumar, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Mohalla Jaitpura, Ward No. 3, Near
Shyam Mandir, Behror, District Alwar, Presently Resident
Of Mohalla Rao Ka, Near Vyas Ki Haveli, Narnaul, District
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(8 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
Mahendragarh, Harayana.
2. Kamlesh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Devi Lal Jaiswal, Aged About
46 Years, R/o Shittla Colony, Tehsil Hindauncity, District
Karauli, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11513/2019
Uma Kumari Rana D/o Shri Vijendra Singh Rana, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Purana Risala, Rac Road, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11516/2019
1. Smt. Manoj Siggar D/o Shri Dayanand Siggar, Resident Of
Village Basadi, Teshil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu,
(Rajasthan).
2. Smt. Nirmala D/o Shri Bhikhu Singh W/o Shri Rajkumar
Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Dhani Kali Ghati,
Papurana, Lalgarh, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu
(Rajasthan).
3. Smt. Krishna Kumari D/o Shri Ratibhan W/o Shri
Satyadev, Resident Of Village Kundansinghpura, Post
Rodwal, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar (Rajasthan).
4. Laxmi Devi D/o Shri Churaman Singh, Aged About 33
Years, Resident Of Village Nangla Aaju, Tehsil Khumher,
District Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
5. Seema D/o Shri Churaman Singh, Aged About 33 Years,
Resident Of Village Nangla Aaju, Tehsil Khumher, District
Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(9 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
6. Smt. Nisha Yadav D/o Shri Dharmveer Singh W/o Shri
Sunil Yadav, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Village
Naghori, District Alwar (Rajasthan).
7. Vidhya Sagar Mangal S/o Shri Ram Nibas Gupta, Resident
Of Teachers Colony, Bypass Road, New Bus Stand Basari,
District Dholpur (Rajasthan).
8. Naveen Prakash S/o Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Resident
Of Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur,
(Rajasthan).
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services Rajasthan,
Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services
Rajasthan, Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11517/2019
1. Karishna Kumari D/o Shri Hetram, Aged About 36 Years,
Resident Of Dhani Badwali, Nain, Thanwas, District
Mahendragarh, (Haryana)
2. Anita Kumari D/o Shri Narender Singh, Aged About 29
Years, Resident Of Dhawana Khol, District Rewari
(Haryana).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur,
(Rajasthan).
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services Rajasthan,
Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services
Rajasthan, Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(10 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11566/2019
Anita Kumari D/o Satroop Singh W/o Rajendra Singh, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Village Goth, Tehsil Buhana, District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11960/2019
1. Rakesh Lal Meena S/o Shri Phool Chand Meena, Aged
About 41 Years, Resident Of Village- Suratpura, Post And
Tehsil- Sapotara, District- Sawaimodhopur (Raj.)
2. Pappu Lal Meena S/o Shri Jauharya Meena, Aged About
37 Years, Resident Of Village- Nishana, Post- Amargarh,
Tehsil- Sapotara, District- Sawaimodhopur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health Services, Government
Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Medical And Health Services Rajasthan, Tilak
Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11970/2019
Sunil Kumar S/o Rajendra Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Sanjay Nagar, Near Aradhana School, Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(11 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
4. The Mission Director, Nhm, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11997/2019
1. Ravindri Daughter Of Shri Mohar Singh, Aged About 29
Years, Resident Of Village And Post Bhadira, Tehsil Nadbai,
District Bharatpur (Raj.)
2. Supriya Chaneja Daughter Of Shri Ram Chandra Chaneja,
Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of E-2, Hari Nagar, Shastri
Nagar, Opposite Jalsu House, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Ravinder Kumar Yadav Son Of Shri Jeet Ram Yadav, Aged
About 40 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Nangal
Khoria, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
4. Pramod Kuamr Saini Son Of Shri Sita Ram Saini, Aged
About 27 Years, Resident Of Dhani Maliyan, Village Jhalri,
Tehsil Shri Madhopur District Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical And
Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Medical And Health
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak
Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Health
Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12014/2019
Babita Kumari W/o Shri Surendra Kumar, Aged About 33 Years,
By Caste Jat (Obc), R/o Village Kakdeu Kalan, Tehsil Malsisar,
District Jhunjhunu (Raj).
----Petitioner
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(12 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief
Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12025/2019
Preeti Jadoun D/o Shri Govind Singh Jadoun, Aged About 25
Years, By Caste Thakur, Resident Of Behind Panchsheel Petrol
Pump, Ghoolkot, Dholpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical
And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Govt.
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director Mission (Nrhm), Medical And Health Department,
Govt. Of Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C
Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12086/2019
Bheru Lal S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Village Jalia Second Via Bijai Nagar, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health Rajasthan Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Director, Medical, Health And Family Welfare, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Additional Director (Administration), Health And Family
Welfare, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12109/2019
1. Pramod Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Radhe Shyam, Aged
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(13 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
About 44 Years, R/o Village Bagana Kalan, Th. Hindaun
City, Distt. Karauli (Raj.)
2. Yunus Ali S/o Shri Abdul Aziz, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Mohalla Sadat, Village Malpura, Th. Malpura, Distt. Tonk
(Raj.)
3. Anil Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Shri Jag Mohan Bhardwaj, Aged
About 43 Years, R/o Kachrauli, Village Kachrauli, Th.
Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli (Raj.)
4. Mohammed Ismail Naqvi S/o Shri Syed Ibraheem Ali,
Aged About 38 Years, R/o 195- Fazal Ka Nada Ka Rasta,
Mohalla Sadat, Village Malpura, Th. Malpura, Distt. Tonk
(Raj.)
5. Vikas Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Shiv Lahari Sharma, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Village Post Sewa, Th. Wazirpur,
Distt. Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12130/2019
1. Laxmi Fauzdar D/o Shri Bharat Singh W/o Shri Ashok
Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 1 G 14 Stc Housing
Board Colony Riico Road, Bharatpur (Raj.)
2. Sunita D/o Shri Sampat Singh W/o Shri Pushpendra
Rawat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Govind Nagar, Madarpur
Road, Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health, Govt. Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Admn.), Directorate Of Medical
And Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya
Bhawan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(14 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12226/2019
Shashi Kushwah D/o Omprakash Kushwah, Aged About 44 Years,
W/o Ram Sewak Singh, B/c Kushwah, Resident Of Village
Todpura, Post Sanora, Tehsil Badi, District Dholpur. At Present
Posted As Community Health Centre, Bhitarwar, District Gwalior.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Additional Director (Administration), Department Of
Medical And Health Services, Tilak Marg, Swastha
Bhawan, Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12295/2019
1. Sohan Singh S/o. Sh. Birbal Singh, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o. Village Post Mai, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur
2. Radhakant S/o. Sh. Balwant Singh, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o. Bahtana, Kuchwati, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur
3. Ravindra Gurjar S/o. Sh. Prasadi Lal Gurjar, Aged About
39 Years, R/o. Village Balakheda, Tehsil Nadotic, District
Karauli
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical
And Health Service Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Director, Medical And Health Service (Public Health),
Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services,
Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12325/2019
Udam Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 34 Years, Resident
Of Parshuram, Colony, Behrod Road, Near Delhiwali Dhani, Tehsil
Narnaul, District Mahendragarh, (Haryana).
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(15 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur,
(Rajasthan).
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services Rajasthan,
Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services
Rajasthan, Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12335/2019
1. Pushkar Lal Kumawat S/o Laxman Lal Kumawat, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Mama Dev Mohalla, Ward No. 11,
Rathanjana, Tehsil And District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
2. Anita Kumari Kumawat D/o Ganpat Lal Kumawat, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Panthwari Mohalla, Rathanjana,
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
3. Takhat Singh Chundawat S/o Ranjeet Singh Chundawat,
Aged About 34 Years, R/o Kareliya, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
4. Mukesh Khatik S/o Kanhaiya Lal Khatik, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Vpo Kulthana, Ward No. 13, Tehsil And District
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
5. Meena Bhatt D/o Kanhaiya Lal Bhatt, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Nandod, Tehsil Sagwada, District Dungarpur,
Rajasthan.
6. Pawan Kumar Jain S/o Dariyaw Singh Jain, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Gogunda, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Narendra Singh S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Talai Mohalla, Ward No. 06, Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
8. Vishal Sharma S/o Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About
35 Years, R/o 180, Kritikunj, Ward No. 21, Areapati Marg,
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
9. Nitin Kumar Vyas S/o Narendra Kumar Vyas, Aged About
38 Years, R/o Dhariyawad, Tehsil Dhariyawad, District
Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
10. Harish Kumar Tailor S/o Ishwar Dan Tailor, Aged About 43
Years, R/o Kharedi Mohalla, Ward No. 3, Pratapgarh,
Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(16 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
11. Manish Kumar Vairagi S/o Surya Prakash Vairagi, Aged
About 37 Years, R/o 62, Nandvano Ki Gali, Gaopalganj,
Ward No. 14, Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12401/2019
Alka Sagar Daughter Of Shri Hari Singh Sagar, Wife Of Shri
Bijendra Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Gunahu
Post Sihot Badi, Tehsil And District Sikar, At Present Resident Of
Village Jhadoli, Post Ghatla, Tehsil And District Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical And
Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Medical And Health
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak
Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Health
Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12432/2019
Urmila Fozdar D/o Babu Lal Fozdar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
D/62, Nanda Ji Ki Badi, Khedli Phatak, Kota, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(17 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12442/2019
1. Manojee D/o Devee Singh, W/o Kedar Singh, Aged About
39 Years, R/o R.k. Puram, Brij Nagar, Achhnera Road,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajesh D/o Shyam Singh, W/o Rajvir Singh, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Govind Nagar, Near Balbhara School,
Madarpur Road, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
3. Saroj Kumari D/o Sudar Lal Sharma, Aged About 41
Years, R/o E-386, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12477/2019
Trapti Pandey D/o Shri Dwarika Prasad Pandey, Aged About 36
Years, Resident Of C-22, Mahavir Nagar Extension, Kota,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12495/2019
1. Govind Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Suresh Chand
Sharma, Aged About 43 Years, R/o V And P Behrod, Tehsil
Behrod, Distt. Alwar
2. Sandeep Kumar Sharma S/o Shram Singh Sharma, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o V And P Karnikot, Tehsil Mandawar,
Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
3. Vijay Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ram Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 45 Years, R/o V And P Karnikot, Tehsil Mandawar,
Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
4. Vinesh Kumar Mandaiya S/o Shri Kishori Lal Mandaiya,
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(18 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
Aged About 29 Years, R/o V And P Sarund, Tehsil Kotputli,
Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief
Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Govt.
Secretariate, Jaipur
2. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services,
Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12754/2019
1. Surendra Kumar Dhamaniya S/o Sh. Sua Ram, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Village And Post Khareri, Tehsil
Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
2. Shrikant S/o Sh. Duli Chand, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Village And Post Khareri, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur
(Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health, Rajasthan Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Director, Medical, Health And Family Welfare, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Additional Director (Administration) Health And Family
Welfare, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12761/2019
Mukesh Kumar Rundla S/o Shri Govind Ram Rundla, Aged About
35 Years, R/o Village Madho Ka Bas, Post Bhutera Th. Chomu,
Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(19 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12835/2019
Hari Ram S/o Radha Kishan, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village
And Post Rasal, Via Kuchamancity, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12876/2019
1. Noor Ahamad Ansari S/o Ahamad Husain Ansari, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o Sunel, Tehsil Pidawa, District
Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
2. Lokesh Kumar S/o Mangal Chand, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Village And Post Churela, District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.
3. Asha Jatav D/o Bieermdev Jatav, W/o Pushpendra Kumar,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Itawa, Teacher
Colony, Pipalda Road Itawa, Tehsil Pipaldas, District Kota,
Rajasthan.
4. Virendra Singh Yadav S/o Dharamveer Singh Yadav, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Village Molawas, Post Jalawas, Tehsil
Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
5. Umender Kumar Jaiman S/o Raj Rajesh Kumar Jaiman,
Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Barodamev, Tehsil
Laxmangarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
6. Bimala Kumari Nagar D/o Mansha Ram Nagar, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Vpo Baluhera, Tehsil Kanwas, District Kota,
Rajasthan.
7. Mukesh Kumar Malav S/o Sitaram Malav, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Vpo Bohat, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran,
Rajasthan.
8. Nazneen D/o Manzoor Ahamad, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Jama Masjid Ke Pass, Manohar Thana, Jhalawar,
Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(20 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
9. Kum. Shyama Kumari D/o Durga Singh, Aged About 41
Years, R/o Anand Niwas, Bapu Colony, Rangpur Road,
Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota, Rajasthan.
10. Dhanraj Nagar S/o Jodhraj Nagar, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Vpo Kanwarpura Mandwalan, Tehsil Khanpur, District
Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
11. Dinesh Kumar Khadiya S/o Shri Ram Khadiya, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Rampura, Via Pawata, Tehsil Kotputli,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13519/2019
1. Praveen Kumar Son Of Shri Ghisaram, Aged About 37
Years, Resident Of Vpo Khandwa, Teshil Buhana, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
2. Manesh Singh Chhichholia Son Of Shri Ramavatar
Chhichholia, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Vpo
Sherpur, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
4. Mission Director, Nhm, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme,
Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13039/2018
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(21 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
1. Arvind Bagoria S/o Shri Prahlad Chand Bagoria, Alwar Bus
Stand, Bansur, District Alwar Raj.
2. Rahul Bagoria S/o Shri Hazari Lal Bagoria, Resident Of Veer
Khana Kua Kumhara Ka Mohalla, Tehsil Bansur, District
Alwar Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director Admn., Medical And Health Services,
Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17452/2018
Dara Singh Yadav S/o Shri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of Village And Post Kansli, Tehsil Kotputli,
District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
3. The Additional Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11461/2019
Shivalesh Kumari D/o Vikram Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Village Fatehgarh Post Fatehgarh, Tehsil Sarwar, District Ajmer
(Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(22 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Admn.) Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
4. The Mission Director, Nhm, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13846/2019
1. Sawan Kumar Beelwal S/o Shri Chandra Mohan Beelwal,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o Gali No.9, Shivaji Colony
Niwai District Tonk.
2. Mithlesh Goar D/o Shivnarayan Goar, Aged About 29
Years, R/o H.no. 1 C 32 Stc Housing Board Colony
Bharatpur Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief
Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11499/2019
Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Choote Lal, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Village Shahjadpur, Tehsil Mundawar Dist. Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
Department Of Medical And Health Service Secretariat
Jaipur.
2. The Director (Adm.), Department Of Medical And
Health Services, Rajasthan Medical Directorate
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(23 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Adm.), Department Of Medical
And Health Services, Rajasthan Medical Directorate
Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. The Joint Director, Department Of Medical And Health
Service, Zone Jaipur Dist. Jaipur Raj.
5. The Chief Medical And Health Officer (Cmho), Jaipur
Dist. Jaipur.
6. The Chief Medical And Health Officer (Cmho), Alwar
Dist. Alwar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mahendra Kumar Saini, Mr.Ram
Pratap Saini, Mr.Narpat Singh
Shekhawat, Mr.Iliyas Khan,
Mr.Mamraj, Mr.Muniesh Bhardwaj,
Mr.Tanveer Ahamad, Mr.Rajesh Kumar
Sharma, Mr.Sanjay Mehla, Mr.Anoop
Agarwal, Mr.Arpit Srivastava, Mr.Devi
Singh Choudhary, Mr.Anoop Dhand,
Mr.Khurshid Ahmed Khan, Mr.Suresh
Kumar, Mr.Vinod Kumar Sharma and
Ms.Komal Kumari Giri, Advocates.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Harshal Tholia, Advocate on behalf
of Dr.Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, Addl.
Advocate General and Mr.Vivek Tyagi,
Dy.Government Counsel.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Judgment
Judgment Reserved on : 14th, 16th & 19th August, 2019
Date of Pronouncement : 29th August, 2019
By the Court:
1. The instant batch of writ petitions involves common issue and as such, all the writ petitions are decided by the common order, as per the consent of learned counsel for the parties. (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(24 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
2. The seminal question for consideration before the court is in respect of award of bonus marks for appointment on the post of Nurse Grade-II to the candidates working under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) in other States outside the State of Rajasthan.
3. The facts of S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11379/2019 are taken as a lead case to decide the present controversy. The petitioner Praveen Kumar has pleaded in his writ petition that he had applied for the post of Nurse Grade-II in pursuance of the advertisement dated 30.05.2018 inviting applications from the eligible candidates. The petitioner has pleaded that he possesses the requisite qualification of Senior Secondary and diploma in GNM and he is duly registered with the Rajasthan Nursing Council, which makes him entitled for appointment on the post of Nurse Grade-II. The petitioner has pleaded that selection on the post of Nurse Grade-II is to be made on the basis of the marks obtained in qualifying academic examination or professional examination or both, as specified in the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Rules of 1965") and such bonus marks, as may be specified by the State Government having regard to length of experience on similar work under the Government, National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and Medicare Relief Society.
4. The petitioner has pleaded that for award of bonus marks towards length of experience, an amendment was made by the State Government under the Rules of 1965 vide amendment Notification dated 06.02.2013, according to which, the candidates (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM) (25 of 42) [CW-11379/2019] who are working under the Government, NRHM and Medicare Relief Society are entitled for award of bonus marks.
5. The petitioner has pleaded that he was having an experience of one year, eight months and one day, of working on the post of Staff Nurse (which is equivalent to the post of Nurse Grade-II) in NRHM scheme in the District Narnaul, State of Haryana. The petitioner has pleaded that the experience certificate was issued to him by the competent authority of NRHM of the State of Haryana and as such, two years experience of working in a nationalized scheme, was included in Rule 19 for award of bonus marks.
6. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent-employer published a list dated 17.06.2019 whereby they called the candidates for documents verification and the said list did not include the name of the petitioner despite having the experience of working of more than one year on the post of Staff Nurse in NRHM Scheme in the State of Haryana. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent-employer has committed discrimination in award of bonus marks between the candidates working in the NRHM Scheme in the State of Rajasthan and in the States, other than State of Rajasthan. The petitioner has pleaded that after publication of the list excluding the name of the petitioner, he submitted objections/representation before the respondents, since no heed has been paid, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(26 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
7. The petitioner has pleaded that the amendment Notification dated 06.02.2013, nowhere mentioned that benefit of experience was to be given to only those candidates who are working in the NRHM Scheme in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner has also referred to an order dated 18.11.2013 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.16545/2013 [Mahesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.] and other connected writ petitions, whereby this court has declared that the persons who are working in the NRHM Scheme irrespective of the State, will be eligible for award of bonus marks, as per Rule 19 of the Rules, 1965.
8. The petitioner has also made reference of order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12942/2015 [Jagdish Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] whereby the Division Bench has made observation that the persons working under the NRHM Scheme, are working in a nationwide scheme and such persons will be entitled to have weightage, irrespective of the place of their working.
9. The petitioner while formulating prayer in the writ petition has sought a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents- State to consider the experience of the petitioner which he gained in NRHM Scheme in the State of Haryana for the purpose of grant of bonus marks and further direction has been sought to allow the petition in terms of the order dated 18.11.2013 passed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.16545/2013 [Mahesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.].
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(27 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
10. The respondents-State has filed reply to the writ petition. The respondents have denied that experience of the petitioner as having worked under the NRHM Scheme in the State of Haryana and same experience cannot be considered for granting bonus marks. The respondents have taken a plea that though the NRHM/NHM Scheme was launched by the Government of India, however, the same is managed individually at the State Level by different State Governments and every State has its own demographic conditions and requirements for improving health care needs and vulnerable diseases of its people. It is emphasized that the Government of Rajasthan is conducting various programmes for its employees working under the NRHM Scheme and therefore, the persons working in the State of Rajasthan, have complete knowledge of the need and requirements of health sector in the State of Rajasthan and they are entitled for preference in service in the form of weightage/bonus marks.
11. The respondents have pleaded that benefit extended on the basis of experience is only a little weightage on the basis of work experience in Rajasthan and not the eligibility and a person having qualificational eligibility is entitled to face the process of recruitment, irrespective of having any experience or not. The respondents emphasized that experience gained in other States cannot be compared with the working in the State of Rajasthan, as every State is having its own health problems and issues and the persons trained to meet such circumstances, stand on different pedestal.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(28 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
12. The respondents also pleaded that fixing up criteria of recruitment, is domain of the State Government and if the State Government has decided to extend benefit of bonus marks to the candidates who have worked in the State of Rajasthan under NRHM/NHM Scheme, such classification is permissible under the law, based on intelligible differentia, having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
13. Counsel for the petitioners have raised following legal submissions for consideration of this Court:-
(A) The issue with regard to award of bonus marks to the candidates having experience from outside the State of Rajasthan, for appointment on the post of Nurse Grade-II is already decided by this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.16545/2013 [Mahesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.] (supra) and such the issue is no more res integra.
(B) The respondent-employer cannot be permitted to discriminate in award of bonus marks between the candidates only on account of acquiring the experience of working in the NRHM Scheme in the State of Rajasthan and in the States, other than State of Rajasthan and such discriminatory treatment is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(C) The centralized scheme of NRHM, implemented by various State Governments, does not make any distinction (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM) (29 of 42) [CW-11379/2019] for acquiring experience and nature of job/work having similarities, the distinction drawn by the respondents, is artificial and without any basis.
(D) The rule making authority, while amending the Rules of 1965 vide amendment Notification dated 06.02.2013, does not prescribe any limitation/restriction for working in the State of Rajasthan only in NRHM/NHM Scheme and according to the amended Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965, the authorities are duty bound to confer the benefit of bonus marks to the candidates irrespective of their place of working.
14. Counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Single Bench of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.16545/2013 [Mahesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.]; the order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12942/2015 [Jagdish Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]; the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13230/2018 [Ashok Kumar Saini & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.] which has been upheld by the Division Bench in D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.42/2019 [Shiv Kumar Meena & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.] and other connected appeals vide order dated 28.02.2019.
15. Counsel for the respondents-State submitted that the respondent-employer is fully entitled to grant benefit of bonus (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM) (30 of 42) [CW-11379/2019] marks to the employees who are working in the State of Rajasthan and the candidates who have gained experience from outside the State of Rajasthan, cannot be conferred such benefit. Counsel argued that the State of Rajasthan, as a matter of policy, has decided that the candidates who have worked in the State of Rajasthan, deserve weightage/bonus marks, since such candidates are acquainted with the health care issues of the people of Rajasthan and particular medical care which is required, as per demographic conditions of the State of Rajasthan, and such conditions can be better understood by the persons who have worked in the State of Rajasthan and various programmes are also implemented by the State of Rajasthan considering the problems faced, by the persons who are living in the State of Rajasthan.
16. Counsel for the respondents has argued that extending the benefit of weightage of bonus marks cannot be claimed by the candidates as a matter of right and it is for the respondent- employer to give preference to the employees working in its establishment in a programme evolved by the State of Rajasthan. Counsel also argued that order of the coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.16545/2013 [Mahesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.] is no more a good law in view of the subsequent pronouncements made by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur and placed reliance on the judgment dated 30.07.2019 passed in D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.673/2019 [State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Daulat Ram & Ors.] & connected appeals; D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13131/2018 [Ratan Singh & Ors. Vs. State (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM) (31 of 42) [CW-11379/2019] of Rajasthan & Ors.] and other connected petitions decided vide order dated 05.08.2019; and D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.837/2019 [State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Satya Dev Bhagaur & Ors.] decided on 13.08.2019. Counsel further placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Full Bench in the case of Rajkumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in AIR 2016 Raj. 176 (FB).
17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record.
18. This court, before proceeding further in the matter, would like to quote the clauses of advertisement dated 30.05.2018:-
"7- vuqHko ds vk/kkj ij cksul vad%& jktLFkku fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; v/khuLFk lsok fu;e 1965 ;Fkk la'kksf/kr fu;eksa ds fu;e 19 esa mYysf[kr izko/kkuksa ds rgr~ vH;fFkZ;ksa dks cksul vad ns; gSA
(i) vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ik=rk dh tkWap ,oa nLrkostks ds lR;kiu ds le; vkosnd dks eq[;ea=h chih,y thou j{kkdks"k] ,uvkj,p,e esfMds;j fjyhQ lslk;Vh] ,M~l dUVªksy lkslk;Vh] jk"Vªh; {k; fu;a=.k dk;ZØe] >kykokM vLirky ,oa fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; lkslk;Vh] lesfdr jksx fuxjkuh ifj;kstuk] jkT; LokLF; ifjokj dY;k.k laLFkku (SIHFW) ,oa jkT; ljdkj ds v/khu leku dk;Z djus dk foHkkx ds vf/kd`r izf/kdkjh }kjk fu/kkZfjr izk:i es tkjh vuqHko izek.k i= izLrqr djuk gksxkA ;g vuqHko izek.k i= foKkfir in ds fy;s vkWuykbZu vkosnu djus dh vafdr frfFk ls iwoZ dk tkjh fd;k gqvk gksuk vko';d gSA vuqHko izek.k i= dk izk:i ^v* layXu gSA foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr izk:i ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh izk:i esa tkjh fd;k x;k vuqHko izek.k i= ekU; ugh gksXkkA
(ii)jktLFkku ljdkj ds v/khu iz/kkukpk;Z ,oa fu;a=d jktdh; esfMdy dkWyst iz/kkukpk;Z >kykokM gkWfLiVy ,.M esfMdy dkWyst lkslk;Vh jktdh; MsUVy dkWyst funs'kd] tu LokLF;@ vkj-lh-,p-@ eksckbZy lftZdy ;wfuV@ vkb-bZ-lh- @ ,M~l v/kh{kd fpfdRlky; lewg] ifj;kstuk funs'kd] ,u,p,e@,M~l funs'kd vkjvkjlh] funs'kd] SIHFW jkT; {k; jksx fu;a=.k vf/kdkjh] jkT; ds leLr eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh] leLr izeq[k fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh] leLr ftyk iztuu ,oa f'k'kq LokLF; vf/kdkjh] eq[; lkoZtfud fo'ys"kd] mi funs'kd vkS"kf/k ijh{k.k iz;ksx'kkyk (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM) (32 of 42) [CW-11379/2019] dks muds v/khu lafonk@O;fDrxr vuqca/k@vLFkkbZ vk/kkj ij dk;Z djus ij vuqHko izek.k i= tkjh djus gsrq vf/kd`r izkf/kdkjh ekuk tkosxkA
(iii)vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa vuqHko ds laca/k esa fu/kkZfjr dkWye esa vko';d izfof"B;ka dh tkuh vko';d gSA ;fn vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa vuqHko ds dkWye esa vko';d izfof"B;ka ugh dh xbZ gS] rks ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vuqHko dk ykHk ugh fn;k tk;sxkA ftlds fy;s vH;FkhZ Lo;a mRrjnk;h gksxkA
(iv) vH;FkhZ }kjk izLrqr vuqHko izek.k i= dks foHkkx }kjk tkjhdrkZ vf/kd`r izf/kdkjh ls lR;kiu djk;s tkus ds i'pkr~ gh cksul vad@vk;q esa f'kfFkyrk dk ykHk fu;ekuqlkj fn;k tkosxk ,oa foHkkx }kjk pkgs tkus ij ewy vuqHko izek.k i= izLrqr fd;k tkuk vfuok;Z gksxkA
(v) vuqHko izek.k i= vkWuykbZu vkosnu ds lkFk viyksM djuk vfuok;Z gS vU;Fkk vuqHko dk ykHk ns; ugh gksxk ,oa ckn esa vkWQykbu dksbZ vuqHko izek.k i= Lohdkj ugh fd;k tkosxkA"
19. It would be relevant to quote the amendment of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 made vide Notification dated 06.02.2013, which reads as follows:-
"GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL (A-GR.II) No.F.2(1) DOP/A-II/82 Dated 6 FEB. 2013 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Rajasthan hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules 1965, namely:-
1. to 3. XX XX XX
4. Amendment of rules 19:-The existing provisions to rule 19of the said rules, shall be substituted by following new provisos, namely:-
"Provided that in case of appointment to the post of Pharmacist, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of marks obtained in qualifying as specified in the schedule appended to these rules and such bonus marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience on similar work under the Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar.(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(33 of 42) [CW-11379/2019] Provided that in case of appointment to the posts other than Pharmacist, which are not in the purview of the Commission, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of marks obtained in such qualifying academic examination or professional examination or both as specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience on similar work under the Government, National Rural Health Mission and Medi Care Relief Society.
Provided further that the decision of the Commission or Appointing Authority, as the case may be, as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate, shall be final."
20. It would be further relevant to quote the amendment of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 made vide Notification dated 30.08.2013, which reads as follows:-
"GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL (A-GR.II) No.F.2(1)DOP/A-II/82 Dated 30 AUG 2013 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Rajasthan hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, namely:-
1. & 2. XX XX XX
3. Amendment of rule 19.- In rule 19 of the said rules.-
(i) in first proviso, for the existing expression "or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar", the expression ", Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar, Revised National Tuberculosis Control Program (RNTCP), Jhalawar Hospital and Medical College Society, Integrated Disease Surveillance Project or State Institute for Health and Family Welfare" shall be substituted.
(ii) in second proviso, for the existing expression "and Medi Care Relief Society", the expression ", Medi Care Relief Society, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, AIDS Control Society, Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme (RNTCP), Jhalawar Hospital and Medical College Society, Integrated Disease Surveillance Project or State Institute for Health and Family Welfare" shall be substituted." (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(34 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
21. This court finds that the respondent-State by notification dated 06.02.2013 while making amendment in Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 has provided that for appointment on the post of Pharmacist and posts other than Pharmacist, merit will be prepared by the appointing authority on the basis of the marks obtained in qualifying examination or professional examination or both, as specified in the schedule appended to the Rules and such bonus marks, as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience on similar work under the Government, National Rural Health Mission and Medicare Relief Society. (Emphasis supplied.)
22. The said amendment conferred power on the Appointing Authority to award bonus marks having regard to the length of service of the candidates, who are working under the Government, National Rural Health Mission and Medicare Relief Society. The purpose of the State Government was to give weightage to the candidates who are working in the State of Rajasthan.
23. The State Government further amended Rules of 1965 vide Notification dated 30.08.2013, whereby further amendment of Rule 19 was made and after Medicare Relief Society, other expressions were added, where different programmes were carried out by the State Government for medical care of people in different schemes in the State of Rajasthan. The purpose of the State Government was to enhance the scope of working in different schemes in the State of Rajasthan as various programmes are being run to take medical care to the people of (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM) (35 of 42) [CW-11379/2019] State of Rajasthan. The working of employees/candidates in different programmes was taken into consideration and accordingly Appointing Authority found that experience gained by the persons in other defined establishments/ schemes, the benefit was to be conferred to such candidates.
24. This court finds that the State Government, as a matter of Policy, if has decided to confer weightage of grant of bonus marks, no fault can be found, if the same is conferred in respect of the candidates working in the State of Rajasthan alone. This court finds that the candidates, who have gained experience of similar work in the State of Rajasthan in various schemes, as defined under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965, form a separate class and the object of the State Government is to consider their working/ experience for the people of Rajasthan. The State-employer if has restricted the benefit of bonus marks to a well-defined class of persons, working in the State of Rajasthan, the same cannot be termed as discriminatory or arbitrary. The object of the State Government is to confer certain benefit to a class of persons who have worked only in the State of Rajasthan. Working in NRHM/NHM in other parts of the country, do not fulfill the object of the State Government to render medical facilities to the people, who are residing in the State of Rajasthan.
25. This court finds that the State-employer is within its domain to fix the criteria for recruitment and if there is a reasonable classification, the same cannot be hit by the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The said classification is based on intelligible differentia and have a rational nexus with the object of rendering (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM) (36 of 42) [CW-11379/2019] service in the State of Rajasthan, as such, the object is sought to be achieved, by giving bonus marks to the employees who are working in the State of Rajasthan.
26. This court finds that reliance placed on the judgment dated 18.11.2013 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. (supra) is not a binding precedent in view of the subsequent judgments rendered by the Division Bench of this court.
27. This court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Daulat Ram & Ors. [D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.673/2019] (supra) had occasion to consider the claim of bonus marks on the post of Nurse Grade-II in respect of experience of working of employees in four categories of institutions. The advertisement/recruitment process only prescribed the benefit of bonus marks to four categories i.e. (a) those who worked with the State of Rajasthan under National Rural Health Mission; (b) employees who worked under the Chief Minister BPL Scheme; (c) individuals appointed under the State Jeevan Raksha Kosh; and (d) those who worked with the State of Rajasthan in its departments, with similar experience. The candidates approached the Single Bench of this Court contending arbitrariness on the part of the State because the candidates had not worked in any of the four listed categories of institutions. The candidates working in the institutions such as University, NGOs and Ayurvedic Hospitals, etc. filed the writ petitions and the Single Bench allowed the writ petitions. The matter was decided by the Division Bench in appeal filed by the State and the Division Bench (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM) (37 of 42) [CW-11379/2019] held that if the State-employer insisted that only four specified class of institutions or programme where the individual had worked would be considered eligible for award of bonus marks, no fault can be found with such policy of the State and award of bonus marks is a benefit which cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The order passed by the Division Bench is quoted hereunder:-
"9. It is quite evident from the above discussion that Gaurav Kumar dealt with the precise issue. The import of the Division Bench judgment is clear that the award of bonus marks is a benefit and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The State can then fashion its Rules and policies to grant such benefits to specified or particular individuals having regard to the needs of its departments. In such circumstances given the imperative of Rule 19, the Court does not discern any arbitrariness, if the State insists that only four specified categories of institutions or programme where the individual had worked would be considered eligible for bonus marks; irrespective of manner of their recruitment or appointment. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
10. The argument on behalf of the writ petitioners that the employees of the State Universities and other such bodies which are aided by the State should also be included and that their experience should be granted bonus marks, in the opinion of this Court is unpersuasive. If one accepts the position in law that grant of bonus marks is a benefit, it also follows that the State is entitled to choose whom to accord the benefit. There cannot be a complaint of arbitrariness unless there is something manifestly unreasonable about the fashioning of such policies. The objective with which the State has framed its policy and confined grant of bonus marks for experience in four categories of the institutions is that each of them were carrying out State policies. It chose to grant bonus marks working in those institutions and not others, cannot in the opinion of the Court result in a complaint of discrimination or arbitrariness.
11. For the above reasons, this Court holds that the impugned judgments are in error and are accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed accordingly. All pending applications are disposed."(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(38 of 42) [CW-11379/2019]
28. This court finds that the Division Bench in the case of Ratan Singh & Ors. (supra) considered the validity of proviso to Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2018 challenged on the ground that employees working and discharging similar functions in Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar and Drugs Distribution Centers since were working only for the State and carrying out its policies and such benefit should be granted to them. The Division Bench also considered the claim of the petitioners who were working for the Central Government and as such also decided the writ petition Nos.13690, 13750 & 13902 of 2018 and the Division Bench specifically held that it is open for the State not to grant bonus marks to those working for the Central Government. The operative portion of the order is reproduced as under:-
"It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the decision in Daulat Ram (supra) ought not to be construed as binding because in the present case, all employees working and discharging similar functions, employed by Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar and Drugs Distribution Centers were primarily and essentially working only for the State and carrying out its policies.
This Court is of the opinion that the argument has no merit. In Daulat Ram - as indeed in Gaurav Kumar Sen, this Court highlighted that the grant of bonus marks is a benefit which cannot be claimed as a matter of right. If the State chooses to prioritize employees working in its establishment or directly in relation to a programme evolved by it and it chooses not to grant such benefit to others, this is neither discriminatory nor arbitrary. Therefore, the challenge to the amended rule cannot be accepted.
Civil Writ Petition No. 13884/2018 The petitioner seeks the benefit of age relaxation under Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2013. The State is directed to examine it and grant the benefit, if permissible.(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(39 of 42) [CW-11379/2019] Civil Writ Petition No. 13690/2018, 13750/2018 & 13902/2018 In these petitions, the petitioners worked for the Central Government and claim the same benefit as is granted to those working for the State of Rajasthan.
Having regard to the view expressed i.e. four categories of employees working for the State Government or in its specified programmes, are entitled to the benefit of bonus marks, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the argument urged.
It is open to the State not to grant bonus marks to those working for the Central Government as well.
All the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed save and except the directions granted in Civil Writ Petition No.13884/2018."
29. The Division Bench again considered the issue with regard to counting of experience gained by the candidates in NRHM outside the State of Rajasthan i.e. in the Centralized Scheme run by autonomous body of Government of NCT of Delhi in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Satya Dev Bhagaur & Ors. [D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.837/2019] decided vide order dated 13.08.2019 and the Division Bench, in view of the order passed in the case of Ratan Singh (supra), dismissed the claim of the candidates to grant the benefit of bonus marks. The Division Bench further clarified that if the intention of the State is to confine the benefit of award of bonus marks to those employed in the enumerated schemes within the State of Rajasthan, no illegality can be found to the State's decision. The relevant portion of the order is quoted hereunder:-
"The State argues that the recent judgment in Ratan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13131/2018, decided on 05.08.2019], covers the issue inasmuch as it was held that grant of benefit of bonus marks cannot be claimed as a matter of right.(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM)
(40 of 42) [CW-11379/2019] This Court is of the opinion that the observation made in Krishan Kumar Saini's Case (supra) cannot be treated as binding precedent that the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2018 specifically confined the grant of bonus marks, to enumerated categories of employees, who had gained experience while working in various institutions in Rajasthan or for the State of Rajasthan, in the concerned schemes. This view is also in accord with the previous Division Bench judgment in Gaurav Kumar Sen & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.24245/2018, decided on 29.102018]. Besides, this Court notices that the rules were amended, having regard to the interpretation given by other Division Bench, after the introduction of the award of bonus marks scheme by the Rules of 2013.
In these circumstance, the intention of the State was to confine the benefit of award of bonus marks to those employed in the enumerated schemes within the State of Rajasthan and not others.
The appeal is accordingly allowed; the impugned order is hereby set aside. All pending applications are disposed of."
30. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that issue in respect of award of bonus marks to the candidates having experience from other States other than the State of Rajasthan has been considered in the case of Ashok Kumar Saini & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B.Civil Writ petition No.13230/2018] decided on 26.11.2018 and further upheld by the Division Bench in the case of Shiv Kumar Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.42/2019] vide order dated 28.02.2019, this court finds that the Single Bench of this court decided the writ petition in view of the judgment passed by this court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) and judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Jagdish Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra). The Single Bench declined to grant relief to the petitioner as the experience (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM) (41 of 42) [CW-11379/2019] gained by the candidate as Ambulance Paramedic was not valid or relating to the similar work vis-a-vis the work of Nurse Grade-II. The view of the Single Bench was upheld by the Division Bench in the case of Shiv Kumar Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra).
31. This court finds that the view expressed in the case of Ashok Kumar Saini (supra) cannot be a binding precedent in view of the subsequent pronouncements made by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Daulat Ram & Ors. (supra); Ratan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra); and State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Satya Dev Bhagaur & Ors. (supra).
32. As far as reliance placed by counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of Division Bench passed in the case of Jagdish Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) is concerned, this court finds that the issue before the Division Bench was with regard to non-grant of bonus marks to the persons who were not working with the Government of Rajasthan, National Rural Health Mission and Medi Care Relief Society. The grievance raised by the petitioners was that experience gained in Government Hospital, National Rural Health Mission or Medi Care Relief Society, could not be treated at any higher pedestal than the persons having similar work experience with other institutions including the Government Hospitals of other States. The Division Bench after analyzing the scheme of Rules and the purpose of grant of bonus marks, came to the conclusion that experience gained in other States cannot be compared with the working in the State of (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM) (42 of 42) [CW-11379/2019] Rajasthan as every State is having its own problems and issues and the persons trained to meet such circumstances, were standing on different pedestal. The Division Bench did not find any illegality in the provisions relating to the grant of bonus marks and as such, the petition was dismissed. This Court finds that the judgment passed in the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra) does not come to any assistance to the case of the present petitioners.
33. This court finds that the petitioners do not have right to claim the benefit of award of bonus marks and the State Government has not committed any illegality in excluding the candidates who have gained experience outside the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of awarding them bonus marks.
34. Consequently, the instant batch of writ petition being devoid of force, stands dismissed. A copy of this order be separately placed in each file.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Solanki DS, PS (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 09:13:23 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)