Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ashok Kumar Saini And Ors vs State Of Raj And Ors on 26 November, 2018
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13230/2018
1. Ashok Kumar Saini S/o Lal Chand Saini, aged about 29
years, V.P.O. Harsora, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar Raj.
2. Suresh Kumar Singhal S/o Bajrang Lal Gupta, aged about
37 years, Resident Of Behind MJM Court, Narsing Colony,
Gangapur, District Sawai Madhopur Raj.
3. Kailash Chand S/o Hari Singh, aged about 31 years,
Resident Of Yadav Bass, Kajakpur, District Alwar Raj.
4. Mahendra Saini S/o Ramotar Saini, aged about 28 years,
Resident Of Jheed Ki Dhani, Tehsil Thanagazi, Kharkhari
Kalan, 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
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Iliyas Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Shyam Arya, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Order
26/11/2018
The case of the petitioners is that an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Nurse Grade-II was issued by the respondents on 30.5.2018. The appointment on the post of Nurse Grade-II under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate (2 of 10) [CW-13230/2018] Service Rules, 1965 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1965') are based on the merit in the Senior Secondary Examination (academic) and at the GNM/ B.Sc. (Nursing course) (professional). It has been submitted that the second proviso to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 incorporated through the amendment notification dated 28.6.2018 further provides that on posts other than of Pharmacist (that include Nurse Grade-II), the merit would be also determined on the basis of 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, Medicare Relief Society, AIDS Control Society.
The petitioners state to have passed both the Senior Secondary Examination and the GNM/ B.Sc. (Nursing course). It has been submitted that the petitioners are however being denied bonus marks on the basis of their experience to which they are entitled to under the second proviso to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 on the ground albeit they have worked with the NRHM it was not within the State of Rajasthan.
(3 of 10) [CW-13230/2018] It has been prayed in the circumstances that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioners the benefits of bonus marks for experience of having worked with NRHM outside Rajasthan as they have worked as Ambulance Paramedics in the Centralized Accident & Trauma Services (CATS), (An autonomous body of Government of NCT of Delhi) on contract basis under the aegis of NRHM. It has been prayed that in this view of the matter, the experience certificate issued by CATS be considered as relevant for grant of bonus marks under the second proviso to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 and condition No.7 of the advertisement in issue- mandating that the experience certificates for grant of bonus marks be in format as Annex-A, which was appended thereto, be declared to be arbitrary illegal and be quashed and set aside. In support of their contention, counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sonu Singhal vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others in SBCWP No.14495/2013 and others connected matters, decided on 18.11.2013 where it was held, as under:-
(4 of 10) [CW-13230/2018]
12. A Perusal of the definition reveals that Government means State of Rajasthan. In view of the above, whenever somebody is claiming bonus marks while working in the Government, it should be with State of Rajasthan. Now, the question comes about National Rural Health Mission. It is a scheme launched and largely funded by the Government of India. Thus, aforesaid scheme is run by various State Governments which includes the State of Rajasthan. The amended Rule 19 does not specify working under NRHM with the State Government though just before NRHM the word "Government" has been mentioned but in between there exist 'comma'. In view of the above, rule 19 does not mandate similar work under NRHM in the State of Rajasthan. It can be when one is discharging similar duties in NRHM under any State. In view of the above, denial of bonus marks to those, Who are discharging similar work under NRHM can not be held to be justified. The writ petition for them is to be allowed. However, bonus marks would be available only to those, who are discharging similar work to the post applied and not otherwise, Thus, acceptance of the writ petitions should not mean, that even if one is discharging different duties under NRHM, than the post applied by him, then also to be entitled for bonus marks.
13. So far as denial of bonus marks for any other reason. A direction is required to be given as the Government of under obligation to provide bonus marks towards experience if one is discharging similar duties with the State and in any of the scheme mentioned under the amended provision. Thus, all those cases should be examined by the State Government in the light of Rule 19, as amended. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the following direction:-
(i) So far as the issue as to how many bonus marks towards experience are to be given, it would be governed by the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Archana (supra). Accordingly, the bonus marks towards experience would be fifteen in all. The direction, aforesaid, would, however, remain subject to final outcome of the appeal pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the parties would abide by the final outcome of the appeal's therein.
(ii) Award of bonus marks to those, discharging their duties to the post applied, would be allowed if one is working in NRHM (5 of 10) [CW-13230/2018] irrespective of the State as Rule 19 does not call for working under NRHM in the State of Rajasthan.
Counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur in the case of Jagdish Prasad & Others. vs. State of Rajasthan & Others in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12942/2015, decided on 9.2.2016 where it was held, as under:-
"As per the proviso in question a weightage in the form of bonus marks is given to the persons working with National Rural Health Mission, persons working with Government of Rajasthan Hospitals and other health related institutions and with Medi Care Relief Society. So far as the National Rural Health Mission is concerned, that is a nationwide scheme and, therefore, the persons working under this scheme are entitled to have weightage irrespective of the place of their working. All the persons working with National Rural Health Mission anywhere in country and discharging similar work to the work of Nurse Grade-II are entitled for weightage in the form of bonus marks."
Mr.Shyam Arya, AAG for the respondent-State submitted that the intent of second proviso to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 was to confine the benefit of bonus marks interalia on the basis of experience of having worked with the NRHM scheme but only in the State of Rajasthan. This is evident from the fact that (6 of 10) [CW-13230/2018] other organizations experience with which has been reckoned for grant of bonus marks are all of the State of Rajasthan. He submitted that, it was for this reason, that under condition no.7 of the advertisement dated 30.5.2018, the requisite experience certificate was required to be signed by the competent authority in the State of Rajasthan, and in regard to experience with NRHM by the Mission Director/ Project Director, NRHM operating in the State of Rajasthan. Mr.Shyam Arya, AAG submitted that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioners, has contrarily been signed only by the Administrative Officer/ H.O.O. (CATS) and not the competent authority of NRHM. Hence even if CATS operates under the NRHM scheme, of which there is no validation on record, the experience certificate not being in the requisite format by the competent authority of NRHM is of no avail for grant of bonus marks under the second proviso to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965.
Mr.Shyam Arya, AAG further submitted that even otherwise the second proviso to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 speak of experience for bonus marks being relevant only if it was for "similar works". That, Mr.Shyam Arya submitted would be (7 of 10) [CW-13230/2018] experience as Nurse Grade-II or at least as Nurse. The petitioner's experience certificate speaks of the petitioner working as an Ambulance Paramedic. That is on the face of it, is wholly distinct and different from a Nurse Grade-II and hence not relevant for grant of bonus marks for determination merit on the post of Nurse Grade-II under the Rules of 1965.
Heard. Considered.
That experience with the NRHM anywhere in the country is relevant for grant of bonus marks is no more res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sonu Singhal (supra). The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad & Others (supra) also so holds. The question that however remains to be addressed is as to whether the petitioners have experience of "similar work" to be entitled to the grant of bonus marks in the process of recruitment to the post of Nurse Grade-II under the advertisement dated 30.5.2018. A perusal of the experience certificate submitted by the petitioners (Annex-4) indicates that the petitioners have worked as Ambulance Paramedic with the CATS, Delhi. There is nothing on (8 of 10) [CW-13230/2018] record to show that the work of the Ambulance Paramedic is similar to that of Nurse Grade-II. And in any event it is not for this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction to address the issue, as equivalence is a matter of domain expertise which the Court lacks. It would therefore be loath to determine that issue. Whether an Ambulance Paramedic' discharges work similar to that of a Nurse Grade-II is for the appointing authority to determine. Equivalence is to be notified by the appointing authority in this regard. That it was so notified has not been pleaded/ or even brought to my notice in the course of hearing.
Further from Annexure-4--the experience certificate issued to the petitioner by CATS--purportedly working under the NRHM (NHM) it is evident that it is signed by its Administrative Officer/ H.O.O. No authority of NRHM competent for issuing an experience certificate has signed it. It therefore by itself cannot be taken as an experience certificate of working with NRHM (NHM). Further the certificate of experience is not in the prescribed format as per the advertisement dated 30.5.2018. The requirement of a prescribed format is not without thought. It is to ensure that all the requisites (9 of 10) [CW-13230/2018] for a valid experience certificate are properly ticked off for objective assessment by the appointing authority qua Nurse Grade-II. At least substantial compliance with the requirement of the formated experience certificate was required. A complete deviation/ avoidance with that requirement cannot be contemplated as the petitioner has sought a declaration in this petition. Even from a point of view of administrative facility, it is more efficient to objectively check out experience valid for grant of bonus marks when the experience certificate are in the prescribed format.
In this view of the matter, even while holding that the experience with NRHM no matter in which State/ UT submitted substantially in the format prescribed by the advertisement dated 30.05.2018 would be relevant for the grant of bonus marks under the Rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1965, I would be inclined to dismiss this petition on the ground that on the material before this court the experience certificate of the petitioner as Ambulance Paramedic issued by Administrative Officer CATS, Delhi, more so in a format other than the one prescribed without any signature/ (10 of 10) [CW-13230/2018] endorsement of the competent authority of NRHM, cannot be held to be valid or relating to similar work vis-a-vis the work of Nurse Grade-II. The petitioner's prayer for a direction that they be granted bonus marks on account of experience as Ambulance Paramedic with CATS purportedly under NRHM scheme with reference to the second proviso to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 cannot be allowed.
The petition is dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA), J Himanshu/280 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)