Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Girish Kumar Agrawal S/O Mahesh Chandra ... vs State Of Rajasthan Through Principal ... on 29 August, 2019
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
(1) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12838/2018
1. Sandeep Kumar Saini S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad, Resident
Of Ward No. 16, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu Raj.
2. Bhupendra Sharma S/o Shri Jethanand Sharma, Resident
Of Street No. 13, Dhobi Talai Bikaner Raj.
3. Salim Khan Chouhan S/o Shri Raisuddin Chouhan,
Resident Of Ward No. 2, Sardar Bajar Dawal Peer Ki
Masjid Ke Pass, Parbatsar, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur
Raj.
4. Surendra Kumar Kaswan S/o Shri Harlal Singh, Resident
Of Ward No. 24, Chidawa, Tehsil Chidawa, District
Jhunjhunu Raj.
5. Syed Mohammed Jabir Kaji S/o Shri Naimuddin, Resident
Of Ward No. 6, Hospital Road, Chegaro Ki Gali, Ratan
Nagar, Churu Raj.
6. Rajendra Prasad S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad, Resident Of
V/p Dugoli, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur Raj.
7. Rajveer S/o Shri Girraj, Resident Of Vpo Bandi Khurd,
Bharatpur Raj.
8. Fateh Chand Soni S/o Shri Mulchand Soni, Resident Of
Vijay Colony, Jaipur Road, Sikar Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Medical
And Health Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical And Health Service, Swasthya
Bhawan, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Addl. Director Admn., Medical And Health Services,
Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
----Respondents
Connected With
(2) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14594/2018
Hari Kishan Sain S/o Shri Gopiram Sain, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Ward No.
34, Panchwati Hanuman Mandir, Behind Garh, Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(2 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
3. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
----Respondents
(3) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19233/2018
1. Mahesh Kumar Saini Son Of Shri Bodu Ramji Mali, Aged About 31 Years, By
Caste Mali, Resident Of Reengus Road, Near Pulia, Ward No.30, Bhoomiya
Colony, Chomu (Jaipur)
2. Manish Kumar Mittal Son Of Late Shri Dinesh Chand Ji Mittal, Aged About
29 Years, By Caste Mahajan (General), Resident Of 252, Green Park Vistaar
Near Kaushik School, Suraj Nagar, Jaipur
3. Surendra Singh Tanwar Son Of Shri Birju Singh Tanwar, Aged About 33
Years, By Caste Rajpoot (General), Resident Of 55, Hanuman Vatika,
Nangal Jaisa Bohra, Jaipur
4. Ramchandra Son Of Shri Bheru Ram, Aged About 33 Years, By Caste (Obc),
Resident Of C/o O.p.yadav, 14/44, Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur
5. Mukesh Kumar Garg Son Of Shri Banwari Lal Garg, Aged About 40 Years,
By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Roopa Colony, Tehsil-Todabhim, District
-Karauli
6. Deepak Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, Aged About 36
Years, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of 81, Pujari Mohalla Village Bobadi Via
Gathwari Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District -Jaipur
7. Yogesh Kumar Garg Son Of Shri Kedar Nath Garg, Aged About 34 Years, By
Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Adarsh Nagar-I, Opposite Soopa Farm House
Bayana District -Bharatpur
8. Vikram Pratap Singh Rathore Son Of Shri Anop Singh Rathore, Aged About
31 Years, By Caste- Rajput(General) Plot No. 96, Vikas Nagar, Keshav Path
Sikar Road Jaipur
9. Babu Lal Chaudhary Son Of Shri Suraj Pal Chaudhary, Aged About 31 Years,
By Caste Obc Resident Of Village And Post Penya Ka Bas, Via Phulera
District Jaipur
10. Gopesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Bansidhar Sharma, Aged About 47
Years, By Caste Obc, Resident Of 53, Jainagar, Road No.3, Vkia, Jaipur
11. Pramod Agarwal Son Of Shri Jai Prakash Agarwal, Aged About 35 Years, By
Caste Mahajan, Resident Of J-29 Mithala Vihar, Opp. Rajat Path,
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(3 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
Mansarovar Jaipur.
12. Preetam Singh Solanki Son Of Shri Chhuttan Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Near Of Bank Of Baroda,, Chomu, Jaipur.
13. Rakesh Kumar Jat Son Of Shri Harphool Jat, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste
Jat (Obc), Resident Of Village-Post-Vamanwas-Kankar Tehsil-Thanagaji,
District-Alwar
14. Ashok Kumar Son Of Shri Bagaru Ram, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste
(Obc), Resident Of Near Jyoti Bal Niketan School-Amer (Jaipur)
15. Nandkishore Sharma Son Of Shri Gopal Lal Sharma, Aged About 33 Years,
By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of Village Khedlawas, Post Hans Mahal Tehsil-
Bassi District -Jaipur
16. Harsahai Verma Son Of Shri Pooranmal Verma, Aged About 37 Years, By
Caste Raigar (Sc), Resident Of Village-Post Bobas Tehsil Sambharlake,
District -Jaipur
17. Nandkishore Saini Son Of Late Shri Ramgopal Saini, Aged About 34 Years,
By Caste Mali (Obc), Resident Of 3-A, Gupta Garden Pankaj Marg, Govind
Nagar East Amer, Road Jaipur
18. Deshal Kumar Sanga Son Of Shri Buddha Ram Jat, Aged About 31 Years, By
Caste Jat (Obc), Resident Of Village-Post Bamanwas Kankar Tehsil
Thanagaji District -Alwar
19. Shrawan Ram Son Of Shri Lakshman Ram, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste
Patel (Obc), Resident Of Kundan Nagar, Sitabari, Ram Mandir, Sanganer,
Jaipur
20. Dhooda Ram Jat Son Of Shri Gulla Ram Jat, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste
Jat (Obc), Resident Of Village Kalyanpura, Post-Markhi Via-Amarsar,tehsil
Shahpura District Jaipur
21. Mahesh Kumar Puniya Son Of Shri Ladhu Ram Puniya, Aged About 30
Years, By Caste Jat (Obc), Resident Of Village Post Ralawata, Tehsil-Phulera
District -Jaipur
22. Bhawani Singh Tanwar Son Of Shri Birjoo Singh Tanwar, Aged About 38
Years, By Caste Rajput (General), Resident Of 55, Hanuman Vatika,nangal
Jaisa Bohra, Jhotwara Jaipur
23. Lokesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Ramprakash Sharma, Aged About 30
Years, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of 144, Shyam Nagar Colony, District
-Jaipur
24. Mukesh Kumar Raiger Son Of Shri Chhitar Mal Raigar, Aged About 36 Years,
By Caste Sc, Resident Of Village And Post Amarsar, Tehsil Shahpura, District
Jaipur
25. Nagendra Singh Shekhawat Son Of Shri Madho Singh Shekhawat, Aged
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(4 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
About 31 Years, Resident Of V And Post Lakher Via Manoharpur Tehsil Amer
District Jaipur
26. Vikas Kaushik Son Of Shri Veerendra Kumar Kaushik, Aged About 29 Years,
By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of V And Post Thoi, Tehsil-Shrimadhopur,
District-Sikar
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Department Of Personnel Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director (P.h.), Medical And Health Services Rajasthan, Tilak Marg,
Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Institute Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur
5. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Cooperative Department, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur
6. Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh Limited, Medical Section,
Through Its Manager, S.g.r.1, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur
----Respondents
(4) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19982/2018
1. Dheerendra Kumar Pandey Son Of Shri Satish Chand Pandey, Aged About
40 Years, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of Near Old Post Office, Bhusawar,
District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
2. Manishn Kumar Singhal Son Of Shri Mahesh Chand Singhal, Aged About 40
Years, By Caste Vaishya, Resident Of Old Anaj Mandi, Bhusawar District
Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Department Of Personnel, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director (P. H.), Medical And Health Services Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Rajasthan Staff
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(5 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Institute Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur-302018
5. Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Co-Operative Department, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
6. Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh Limited, Medical Section,
Through Its Manager, S.g.r. 1, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur
----Respondents
(5) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20209/2018
1. Sudesh Pachar S/o Shri Sukh Singh Pachar, Aged About 28 Years, Resident
Of Vpo Sirasana, Via Ren, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur (Raj.)
2. Mangal Chand Yadav S/o Late Shri Prabhati Lal, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident Of Village Shyau, Post Anantpura, Via. Govindgarh, District Jaipur
(Raj.)
3. Anil Kumar Jaiman S/o Shri Chiranji Lal Sharma, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of Village Devari, Post Shekhpura, Sikrai, District Dausa (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical And Health Service, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur
3. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
----Respondents
(6) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20249/2018
1. Devendra Sain Son Of Shri Bhag Chand Sain, Aged About 38 Years, By
Caste Obc , Resident Of Plot No. 30, Mangal Nagar, Sirsi Road Panchyawala,
Jaipur
2. Kanak Shekhar Sharma Son Of Ravi Shekhar Sharma, Aged About 35
Years, By Caste Brahmin (General), Resident Of 13, Vijay Nagar-Ii,
Kartarpura Jaipur
3. Gaurav Dixit Son Of Shri Vinod Kumar Dixit, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste
Brahmin (General), Resident Of 17, Gulab Vihar, Near Rajesh Motors, Agra
Road, Jaipur
4. Ram Raj Son Of Shri Sita Ram Jat, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Jat
(Obc), Resident Of V And Post Sureli, Tehsil-Uniyara, Distt. Tonk
5. Vishnu Saini Son Of Shri Boduram Saini, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(6 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
Mali (Obc), Resident Of Pathano Ka Vas, Amarsar, Tehsil-Shahpura, District
-Jaipur
6. Hariom Sharma Son Of Shri Radheshyam Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, By
Caste Brahmin, Resident Of Vpo Leeli, Tehsil-Laxmangarh, District -Alwar
7. Rajesh Kumar Saini Son Of Shri Girdhari Lal Saini, Aged About 28 Years, By
Caste Mali (Obc), Resident Of Village-Haripura, Post-Jodhpura, Tehsil-
Udaipurwati, District -Jhunjhunu
8. Mohammed Shakir Son Of Shri Aflatoon Mohammed, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of -B-2, Prem Colony, Nehru Nagar, Panipech, Jaipur
9. Babu Lal Kasana Son Of Shri Chhitar Mal Kasana, Aged About 31 Years, By
Caste Gurjar (Mbc), Resident Of Village Post Kalyanpura Khurd, Tehsil
Kotputli, District Jaipur
10. Sunil Kumar Yadav Son Of Shri Ramsingh Yadav, Aged About 41 Years,
Resident Of Village Post Boorhwal, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Department Of Personnel Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director (P.h.), Medical And Health Services Rajasthan, Tilak Marg,
Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Institute Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur
5. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Cooperative Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
6. Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh Limited, Medical Section,
Through Its Manager, S.g.r.1, Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur
----Respondents
(7) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20544/2018
1. Hari Singh Son Of Shri Dhan Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Plot No. 151,
Parashwanath Nagar, Behind Holy Family Hospital, Borkheda, Kota
(Rajasthan).
2. Dev Vrat Singh Son Of Shri Kushal Pal Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
House No. B-87, Vallabh Nagar, Kota (Rajasthan).
3. Tarun Kumar Jain Son Of Shri Dhanraj Jain, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Jaipur Golden, Gulab Bari, Kota (Rajasthan).
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(7 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
4. Vijay Kumar Nagar Son Of Shri Babulal Nagar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o C-
348, Indira Vihar, Kota (Rajasthan)
5. Mohit Kumar Tailor Son Of Shri Vishnu Kumar Tailor, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o 1/m/22, Mahaveer Nagar Extension, Kota (Rajasthan)
6. Mahipal Sharma Son Of Shri Satyapal Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
House No. 66, Vaibhav Nagar, Police Line, Kota (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Secretary To Government, Department Of Personnel (A-Ii), Government Of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
3. Director Medical And Health Services, Directorate Of Medical And Health,
Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur Rajasthan).
4. Rajasthan State Ministerial Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its
Chairman, Premises Of State Agriculture Management Institution,
Durgapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
(8) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20624/2018
Lokesh Tiwari S/o Shri Ram Babu Tiwari, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Near
New Hospital Mohan Nagar, Hindaun City District Karauli Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical And Health Service, Swasthya Bhawan,tilak Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur
3. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan,tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
----Respondents
(9) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20631/2018
1. Vanvihari Agrawal S/o Shri Chhel Vihari, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Rajeev
Colony Near T.v. Tower Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
2. Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Ayodhya Nagar, Joshi Bhawan, District Dausa (Raj.)
3. Sunil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahaya Sharma, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Vill. Post Geejgarh, Teh. Sikray, District Dausa (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(8 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
4. Deepak Verma S/o Shri Ishwari Prasad Verma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Bangla Potha, Ward No. 7, Roopvas, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
5. Danishuddin S/o Shri Sharifuddin, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Meharon Ki
Hatai Ke Pas, Khanpur, District Jhalawar
6. Mahendra Kumar Vaishnav S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Vaishnav, R/o Vill Post
Bada, Teh. And District Baran (Raj.)
7. Sunil Kumar Prajapat S/o Shri Ratan Lal Prajapat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Kumhar Pada, Ward No. 9, Teh. Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.)-303503
8. Lokesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Kailash Chandr Sharma, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Shikshak Colony, Gupteshwar Road, Near Rashtriya Bal Mandir
School, District Dausa
9. Surendra Kumar Lawaniya S/o Shri Mahavir Prasad Sharma, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Lawaniyan Sadan, Mishr Mohalla, Helak Gate, Kumher, District
Bharatpur
10. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Chhiddi Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vill.
Painghor Ghadi, Teh. Kumher, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
11. Manish Gupta S/o Shri Kedar Nath Gupta, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Mandi
Bazar, Vpo Kaman, District Bharatpur
12. Atul Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Muket Bihari Sharma, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Nagayach Temple Ke Pas, Ward No. 9, Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
13. Manish Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Magan Lal Agrawal, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o C-37, Narayan Vihar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
14. Abhishek Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Panchayat Samiti Road Near Transfarmar, Dausa (Raj.)
15. Pramod Soni S/o Shri Om Prakash Soni, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Sikar
Road, Ward No. 6, Laxmangarh, Sikar
16. Tarachand Saini S/o Shri Mangal Chand Saini, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Purohit Ji Ki Dhani, Pani Ki Tanki Ke Pas, Ward No. 37, Sikar (Raj.) -332001
17. Narendar Singh Mahla S/o Shri Om Prakash Mahla, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o Vill Narayan Ka Bas, Post Khuri Bari, Teh. Laxmangarh, District Sikar
(Raj.)
18. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Girraj Prasad Gupta, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Vill. Po. Mandavari, Teh. Lalsot District Dausa (Raj.)
19. Lalit Kumar Mishra S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Mishra, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Behind Of Grain Depo, Water Works Colony Sikandra Road, Bandikui,
District Dausa
20. Shiv Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Hari Ram Sharma, Aged About 34 Years 6
Months R/o Behind Of Vill. Po. Barouli Teh. Bhusawar Distrcit Bharatpur
----Petitioners
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(9 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical And Health Service, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Service Selection Board, (Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board) Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture Management
Institute Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. General Manager, Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar
Ltd., Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
(10) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20643/2018
Aditya Pratap Singh S/o Shri Nirbhay Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 417, Govind
Niwas Haldiyon Ka Rasta Johari Bazar District Jaipur, (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical And Health Service, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. The General Manager Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar Limited,
Sahakar Bhawan Jaipur.
5. Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Service Selection Board, (Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board) Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture Management
Institute Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
6. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(11) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20676/2018
1. Alok Sharma Son Of Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, By
Caste Brahmin, Resident Of 82, Puri Mohalla, Tunga, Tehsil-Bassi, District-
Jaipur
2. Randhir Singh Dagur Son Of Shri Veer Singh Dagur, Aged About 34 Years,
By Caste Obc, Resident Of, Village Post-Hukmikhera, Tehsil-Hindaun City,
District- Karauli.
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(10 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
3. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Hari Prasad Sharma, Aged About 32
Years, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of Village Post-Salempura, Tehsil-
Ramgarh, District- Dausa
4. Vinay Gupta Son Of Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste
Mahajan, Resident Of 23, Near B- Block, Budh Vihar, Alwar
5. Sushil Prakash Son Of Shri Omprakash Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, By
Caste Brahmin, Resident Of Village Kherlilodha, Post-Hasanpur, Tehsil-
Laxmangarh, District-Alwar
6. Manish Sharma Son Of Shri Hanuman Sahay, Aged About 27 Years, By
Caste Brahmin, Resident 1/364, Kalakua Housing Board, Alwar
7. Lokesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Moolchand Sharma, Aged About 36
Years, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of 2/125, Kalakua Housing Board, Alwar
8. Umesh Kumar Son Of Shri Hansraj Gurjar, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste
Gurjar, Resident Of Village Katariyo Ka Bas, Post-Hamirpur, Tehsil-Bansur,
District- Alwar
9. Ashish Agrawal Son Of Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste
Mahajan, Resident Of 3/654, Kalakua Housing Board, Alwar
10. Manoj Gupta Son Of Shri Omprakash Gupta, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste
Mahajan, Resident Of 351, Vijay Nagar, Vijay Mandir Road, Alwar
11. Kuldeep Sharma Son Of Shri Rajmukut Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, By
Caste Brahmin, Resident Of Village Bhiwara, Post-Hatundi, Tehsil Mandawar,
District- Alwar
12. Deepak Kumar Son Of Shri Shivcharan Gupta, Aged About 34 Years, By
Caste Mahajan, Resident Of 34, Neb, Shriram Nagar, Alwar
13. Vikram Saini Son Of Shri Hiralal Saini, Aged About 28 Years, By Caste Saini,
Resident Of Aam Ki Wal Rajgarh, Alwar
14. Umesh Kumar Pandla Son Of Shri Laxmi Narayan, Aged About 30 Years, By
Caste Obc, Resident Of Vpo-Patan, Tehsil-Neem Ka Thana, District-Sikar
15. Jatin Arora Son Of Shri Radheshyan Arora, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste
Punjabi, Resident Of 311, Scheme No. 2, Lajpat Nagar, Kalakua Housing
Board, Alwar
16. Sandeep Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Suresh Chand Sharma, Aged About 32
Years, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of A-35, Shakti Nagar, Alwar
17. Anil Kumar Yadav Son Of Shri Ishwar Singh Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, By
Caste Yadav, Resident Of Village-Binolia, Post-Joria, Tehsil Tijara, District-
Alwar
18. Ajeet Singh Son Of Shri Jaisingh Yadav, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste
Yadav, Resident Of Village Post - Ashlimpur, Tehsil-Tijara, District- Alwar
19. Yogesh Kumar Saini Son Of Shri Basant Kumar Saini, Aged About 30 Years,
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(11 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
By Caste Saini, Resident Of Village Post -Ganwari, Tehsil-Neem Ka Thana ,
District- Sikar
20. Mukesh Kumar Bairwa Of Shri Goverdhan Lal Bairwa, Aged About 30 Years,
By Caste Sc, Resident Of Village Post - Geejgarh, Tehsil-Sikrai, District-
Dausa
21. Raj Kumar Bairwa Son Of Shri Goverdhan Lal Bairwa, Aged About 30 Years,
By Caste Sc, Resident Of Village Post - Geejgarh, Tehsil-Sikrai, District-
Dausa
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Department Of Personnel Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director (P.h.), Medical And Health Services Rajasthan, Tilak Marg,
Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Institute Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur
5. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Cooperative Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
----Respondents
(12) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20745/2018
1. Om Prakash Saini S/o Shri Hajari Lal Saini, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste
Mali Resident Of Village Phalaodiquarry, Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan)
2. Vikash Bhardwaj S/o Shri Suresh Chand Sharma, Aged About 39 Years, By
Caste Brahmin Resident Of Sherpur, Khilchipur, Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan)
3. Virendra Kumar S/o Shri Nauratan Mali, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste
Brahmin Resident Of Village Padukallan, Thesil Riya Badi, Nagaur
(Rajasthan)
4. Mukesh Prajapat S/o Hari Ram Prajapat, Aged About 27 Years, By Caste
Kumhar Riesident Of New Colony, Behind Panchayat Samiti, Parbatsar,
Nagaur (Rajasthan)
5. Jitendara Singh Nathawat S/o Laxman Singh, Aged About 32 Years, By
Caste Rajput Resident Of Village Sobari Thesil Bhinai District Ajmer
(Rajasthan)
6. Ramawatar Saini S/o Nathu Lal Saini, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste Malli
Resident Of Chauth Ka Barwara Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(12 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
7. Muzahid Mazeed S/o Mazeed Khan, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste Chobdar
Resident Of Chasku Jaipur (Rajasthan)
8. Hemant Kumar Sharma S/o Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, By
Caste Sharma Resident Of Chuli Gate, Meti Ki Bagheechee Gangapur City,
Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan)
9. Sunil Kumar Gautam S/o Shri Shivkant Gautam, Aged About 36 Years, By
Caste Brahmin Resident Of Narsingh Colony, Gangapur City,
Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan)
10. Surendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Lakshminarayan Sharma, Aged About 37
Years, By Caste Brahmin Resident Of Kirvada, Shrimadhopur, Todabhim,
Karauli (Rajasthan)
11. Rohitash Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste Gurjar
Resident Of Mawai Farm House, Karauli (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through State Of Rajasthan Through Additional Chief
Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Chairman
----Respondents
(13) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20857/2018
Girish Kumar Agrawal S/o Mahesh Chandra Agrawal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward
No. 50, Krishna Block, Kirti Stambh, Bikaner, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical And Health Service, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
----Respondents
(14) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20858/2018
1. Abdul Aziz S/o Shri Abdul Jabbar, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Ward No. 4,
Mohalla Vyapariyan, Regaron Ke Kue Ke Pas, Sikar (Raj.)
2. Mohammed Sharif Gouri S/o Shri Mohammed Ramzan Gouri, Aged About
35 Years, R/o Islamia School Ke Pas, Gouri Manjil, 36 Dukane, Ward No. 08,
Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioners
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(13 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical And Health Service, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Service Selection Board, (Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board) Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture Management
Institute Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. General Manager, Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar
Ltd., Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.)
6. Sikar Wholesale Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar Ltd., Through Its General
Manager, Sikar (Raj.)
----Respondents
(15) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20859/2018
Ashok Kumar Singhal S/o Shri Girraj Prasad Singhal, Aged About 46 Years, Resident
Of Bhooda Gate, Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical And Health Service, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
----Respondents
(16) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21012/2018
1. Praveen Maharwal Son Of Shri Narayan Maharwal, Aged About 34 Years, By
Caste Mali, Resident Of B-116, Anandpuri Park, Motidoongari Road, Jaipur
2. Girija Kumawat Daughter Of Shri Jugal Kishore Kumawat, Aged About 30
Years, By Caste Kumawat, Resident Of Aan Ji Walo Ka Mohalla, Near Bus
Stand, Kaladera, Tehsil-Chomu, District-Jaipur
3. Vidhya Sagar Son Of Shri Ramesh Chand, Aged About 31 Years, By Caste
Malav(Obc), Resident Of Main Bazar, Undwa, Village Undwa, Tehsil
Ramganjmandi, District-Kota
----Petitioners
Versus
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(14 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Department Of Personnel Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director (P.h.), Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg,
Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Institute Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur
5. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Cooperative Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
6. Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh Limited, Medical Section,
Through Its Manager, S.g.r.1, Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur
----Respondents
(17) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21027/2018
Anil Kharol S/o R.s. Kharol, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 382-B,
Pragati Nagar, Kotra (Ajmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through State Of Rajasthan Through Additional Chief
Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Chairman
----Respondents
(18) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21031/2018
1. Kamlesh Kumawat S/o Shri Madan Lal Kumawat, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Jetusar Road, New Colony, Ward No. 25, Reengus, District Sikar (Raj.)
2. Rohit Kumawat S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Kumawat, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Ward No. 19, Barmundo Ki Gali, Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)-332715
3. Sohan Lal Jat S/o Shri Rura Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Post
Abhawas, Tehsil Shrimadhopur District Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical And Health Service, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(15 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Service Selection Board, (Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board) Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture Management
Institute Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. General Manager, Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar
Ltd., Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
(19) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21032/2018
Rahul Kumar Gautam S/o Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of
Vikas Colony, Dausa (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Service, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Service Selection Board, (Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board) Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture Management
Institute Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.).
5. General Manager, Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar
Ltd., Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
(20) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21035/2018
1. Suresh Kumar Kasana S/o Shri Shivram Kasana, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Vill. Post Sikandra, Teh. Sikrai, District Dausa (Raj.)
2. Nand Kishor Sethi S/o Shri Govind Ram Sethi, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Khandelwal Dharmshala Ke Pas, Bandikui, Ward No. 20, Teh. Baswa,
District Dausa (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical And Health Service, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(16 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
4. Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Service Selection Board, (Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board) Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture Management
Institute Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. General Manager, Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar
Ltd., Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
(21) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21036/2018
Hari Ram Saini S/o Shri Khamla Ram, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Purohit Ji Ki
Dhani, Ward No. 38, District Sikar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Service, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Service Selection Board, (Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board) Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture Management
Institute Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.).
5. General Manager, Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar
Ltd., Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
(22) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21050/2018
Ramkesh Mali Son Of Shri Laxman Mali, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Dasha Ka
Kuwa, Lalsot, District Dausa (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Department Of Personnel Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director (P. H.), Medical And Health Services Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board, State Agriculture Management Institute Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur-302018
5. Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Co-Operative Department, Government
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(17 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
Secretariat, Jaipur.
6. Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh Limited, Medical Section,
Through Its Manager, S. G. R. 1, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
----Respondents
(23) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21058/2018
Govind Singh S/o Om Prakash Singh, Aged About 34 Years, By Cast Rawat, Resident
Of V And P- Kalinjer, Via-Rajiyawas Beawar, Ajmer, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through State Of Rajasthan Through Additional Chief
Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Chairman.
----Respondents
(24) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22028/2018
1. Somendra Singh S/o Shri Juzhar Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo
Kundla, Tehsil Gangdhar District Jhalawar (Raj.)
2. Shelendra Singh Thakur S/o Shri Pratap Singh Thakur, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Kundla Road, Village Chaumahla Tehsil Gangdhar District
Jhalawar (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical And Health Service, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur
3. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
4. Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Service Selection Board, (Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board) Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture Management
Institute Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. General Manager, Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar
Ltd., Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
(25) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22226/2018
Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/o Raghunath Prasad Sharma, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Village Phulwara Paipet Tehsil Wazirpur Dist. Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan
----Petitioner
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(18 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through State Of Rajasthan Through Additional Chief
Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Chairman
----Respondents
(26) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25318/2018
Kirti Singh S/o Shri Shyam Singh, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Village And Post
Malsisar, Near Water Works, Ward No. 13, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Service, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial Service Selection Board, (Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board), Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Agriculture Management
Institute Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. General Manager, Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar
Ltd., Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
(27) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27293/2018
Abhishek Sharma S/o Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste
Brahmin, Resident Behind Balaji Temple, Bijainagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through State Of Rajasthan Through Additional Chief
Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Chairman.
----Respondents
(28) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4720/2019
Vikram Singh S/o Bhoop Singh Dhaked, R/o Village Kota Patti Weir Post/tehsil Wier
District Bharatpur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(19 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health
Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Service, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with Mr. Manish
Parihar,
Mr. Saransh Saini
Mr. Nitesh Kumar Garg,
Mr. Himanshu Sharma,
Mr. Rajendra Sharma
Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal &
Mr. Aamir Aziz
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshal Tholia on behalf of
Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma(AAG)
Mr. Prateek Singh
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Judgment Reserved on :: 18/07/2019
Judgment Pronounced on :: 29/08/2019
By the Court(Per Hon'ble The Chief Justice):
1. Common questions arise in all these petitions which
challenge the denial of equivalence to certain class of
candidates and bonus marks to various categories of medical
service-related professionals (Laboratory Assistants and
Pharmacists) seeking employment in the State through
advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service
Commission. The first batch of writ petitions (including D.B.
CWP No.12838/2018) challenge the amendment to the
Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service (Second
Amendment) Rules, 2018, which in prescribing minimum
qualification, narrowed three years' experience as Laboratory
Assistant in State Government Hospitals on contract basis or
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(20 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
through Service Provider Agencies. This is called "the first
batch" hereafter).
2. In the second category of writ petitions, the challenge is to
amendments to concerned Recruitment Rules to the extent
they confine award of bonus marks to a few specific category
of employees who had worked in the health sector, such as
Cooperative Societies, NGOs', ECHS and Paramilitary Forces
(in relation to selection and recruitment to the post of
Pharmacists and Lab Assistants respectively). In this batch
(which includes D.B. CWP No.12838/2018), it is contended
that exclusion of relevant experience with other employers is
arbitrary and discriminatory.
3. The petitioners in the first batch draw to the attention of the
court that by notification dated 28.06.2013, apart from the
educational qualification prescribed (as essential), i.e.
Secondary or its equivalent with a diploma/ certificate course
in Medical Lab Technician from an institute recognized by the
state government, the rules provided an option (apart from
the secondary school certificate) of "one year's experience
in medical lab run by State Government." This, it is
submitted was the subject matter of previous writ petitions,
when the leading to the decision by a Division Bench of this
Court earlier. In the course of those proceedings, reliance
was placed upon a letter dated 08.02.2016, which had stated
that the stand of the State of Rajasthan was that
"Government" under Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955,
meant both, the State and the Central Government. The
letter further stated that all authorities falling within Article
12 of the Constitution would be treated as "Government", for
the purposes of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate
Service Rules, 1965.
4. It is submitted that the impugned rules have now sought to
resile from the previously settled position, and have resulted
in a large section of Lab Technicians and Assistants being
rendered ineligible, inasmuch as apart from the educational
qualifications prescribed, i.e. (a) (i) Senior Secondary with
science or its equivalent or (ii) Any Diploma in Medical
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(21 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
Laboratory Technology from an institute recognized by the
State Government or (b) having minimum three years'
experience of working as Laboratory Assistant, Laboratory
Technician in State Government Hospitals on contract basis
or through Service Provider Agency, shall also be eligible.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners in the first
batch, that the rules have created an extremely anomalous
and arbitrary situation whereby experience of employees
working in autonomous organizations, and societies funded
by the state government, or even employees in the central
organizations, such as ECHS, or other statutory corporations,
stand excluded. It is submitted that there is no rationale for
this exclusion, because the duties performed by such
excluded category of individuals is no different from those
employed by the state. It is pointed out on behalf of the
petitioners, that the discrimination is stark and writ large on
the face, if one considers the fact that not only those
working as employees of the state government, but those
employed through service providers, for state run hospitals,
are deemed eligible, as long as they have three years'
experience.
6. Learned counsel also argued that the impugned amendment
is ex facie arbitrary, because there is no change of
circumstance. Counsel emphasizes that the state had of its
own accord, through letter dated 8th February, 2016, given
an expanded interpretation to what is meant by
"government" - as including not only the state government,
but also the central government and all authorities or
corporations covered by Article 12 of the Constitution of
India. Now, without any change in circumstances at all, the
state has altered its position, denying - in a wholly arbitrary
fashion, equal opportunity to secure public employment to all
class of public employees. The impugned rules it is
submitted, are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
7. The petitioners counsel argue that the interpretation of what
constitutes "Government", was a subject matter of the
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(22 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
decision by a Division Bench of this Court earlier. In the
course of those proceedings, reliance was placed upon a
letter dated 08.02.2016, which had stated that the stand of
the State of Rajasthan was that "Government" under
Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955, meant both, the State
and the Central Government. The letter further stated that
all authorities falling within Article 12 of the Constitution
would be treated as "Government", for the purposes of the
Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965.
This letter was withdrawn, mischievously on 10.02.2017
(after taking note of the judgment in Writ Petition
No.275/2016- which had relied upon a clarification of
08.02.2016). Counsel argue that this withdrawal was
motivated and mala fide, because there was practically no
change in the fact situation; consequently, the only inference
is that such so called "withdrawal" was only to issue the
impugned amendment.
8. The first batch of writ petitions also challenge the restriction
placed by the amendment to proviso to Rule 19 of the rules,
whereby bonus marks are confined to those with "experience
on similar work under the Government, National Rural
Health Mission and Medi Care Relief Society". It is submitted
that such narrowing of the previous experience, to be
counted for award of bonus marks, is arbitrary. Counsel
argued that there is nothing to distinguish those employed
by the government, or those employed in the specified
schemes, from others who might be also discharging similar
functions in the private, or co-operative sector, or those with
central government organizations.
9. It is argued that though the grant of bonus marks is based
on discretion in regard to formulation of a policy, the
classification made, i.e. those working in specified missions/
programmes or the government, on the one hand, and
others, including those working for government schemes,
(but who are not eligible for bonus marks) amounts to
palpable and hostile discrimination.
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(23 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
10. The state, which resists these writ petitions, argues that
each state has its needs and requirements in the health
sector on basis of rural and geological area. It urges that the
Rajasthan Government conducts several training
programmes for the persons working with it, for employees,
including those kept on contractual basis and in different
schemes controlled by the Government of Rajasthan & Medi
Care Society. The training programmes mainly pertain to the
peculiar working pattern in the rural areas of the Rajasthan
State, including the tribal and arid zones. Such training is
mandatory and absenting from it can result in the refusal to
renew service contracts. Therefore, the stipulation, through
the impugned rules has been framed to tailor to the peculiar
needs of the state.
11. It is urged that in a similar case, this Court at the Principal
Seat, at Jodhpur considered the circumstances and observed
by Order dated 09-02-2016 (in DB Civil Writ Petition
No.12942/2015 Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan)
that:-
"From perusal of the record made available, the
Government of Rajasthan has conducted several
training programmes for the persons working
even on contractual basis and under different
schemes controlled by the Government of
Rajasthan and Medi Care Relief Society. The
training programmes mainly pertain to the
peculiar working pattern in the rural areas of
the State of Rajasthan including tribal and arid
zones. It is also pertinent to note that the
participation in such training is mandatory and
non-joining of the same may result into non-
renewal of service contract. The persons
working with Government of Rajasthan and Medi
Care Relief Society with experience similar to
the work of Nurse Grade-II are posted at
different hospitals and other institutions
affiliated with the health projects and as such
these persons are having a special knowledge of
working in the State. A person having such
knowledge certainly forms a class different than
the persons not having such experience of
working in the State. It is also pertinent to note
that the benefit extended is only a little
weightage on basis of the length of service with
experience of working in Rajasthan and not the
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(24 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
eligibility. A person having qualificational
eligibility is entitled to face the process of
recruitment irrespective of having any
experience or not. The experience gained in
other States cannot be compared with the
working in the State of Rajasthan as every State
has having its own problems and issues and the
persons trained to meet such circumstances
stand on different pedestal.
In view of it, we are of the considered opinion
that the persons having experience on similar
work under the Government, National Rural
Health Mission and Medi Care Relief Society
form absolutely a different category and the
classification made under the proviso impugned
is not at all discriminatory."
12. It is urged that the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate
Service Rules, 1965 were framed under proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution of India and have the force of law.
Rule 2(f) of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate
Service Rules, 1965 defines the Government as under:
"(f) "Government" and "State" means
respectively, the Government of Rajasthan and
State of Rajasthan"
13. The proviso to Rule 19 of the said rules, is as follows:
"Provided that in case of appointment to the
posts other than pharmacist, which are not in the
purview of the commission, made Selby prepared
by the Appointing Authority on the basis of
marks obtained in such qualifying academic
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
Medi Care Relief Society."
14. It is argued that the petitioners are working as Lab
Technician in the ECHS Hospitals or those in co-operative
societies are not entitled for bonus marks as they
discharging similar work under the Government (the
Government i.e. Rajasthan Government), National Rural
Health Mission and Medi Care Relief Society. Counsel
highlighted that the award of bonus marks cannot be said to
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(25 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
constitute an integral or essential part of the recruitment
process, and would depend on the exercise of discretion by
the state, in its choice of preferring a certain category of
experience, which it might wish to grant such benefit. Such
exercise of discetion is dependent on appreciation of the
state's own needs for its health sector and the peculiarities
of the given society.
15. The state submits that it withdrew the administrative order
08.02.2016 by an order dated 10 February 2018. It is further
submitted that administrative order neither overruled nor
amended the rules, nor could it do so. The reference of
administrative order dated 08.02.2016, counsel stressed, is
irrelevant. Learned counsel urged that provisions of the
General Clauses Act is inapplicable in the present matter as
provisions of Rule 2(f) of the Rajasthan Medical & Health
Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 itself defines the
"Government" as the Rajasthan government.
16. The State, argued the counsel, is competent to rectify its
mistake and this was done by way the order dated 8
February 2016 - evident from the order dated 10 February
2017.
Second batch
17. In the second batch, the bonus marks awarded to candidates
for recruitment to the post of Pharmacist is in issue. The
recruitment and service conditions in respect of Pharmacists
is governed by provisions of the Rajasthan Medical & Health
Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (called hereinafter as the
Rules of 1965 for convenience). Those rules were notified on
16.3.1966; they provided that the post of Pharmacist is duly
encadered and finds mention under the Schedule-I of the
said Rules of 1965. The procedure for direct recruitment is
concerned, is provided under Part-IV of the Rules of 1965.
The Rules of 1965 were amended from time to time through
notifications and in respect of experience and service under
various departments on the basis of similar work the proviso
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(26 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
to Rule 19 was amended so as to enable the existing working
employees to have the benefit of bonus marks as provided.
18. The notification dated 24.11.2011 was issued and the said
Rules of 1965 were amended by in 2011 (called hereafter
"the amended Rules of 2011"). Under the amended Rules of
2011 the proviso to the Rule 19 was substituted and at that
relevant time as well the working experience and length of
experience based on similar work under the Cooperative
Department and Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar was not added.
The amended proviso to Rule 19 reads as follows:
"Provided that in case of appointment to the post
of Pharmacist, the written examination shall be
conducted by the Appointing Authority and the
merit shall be prepared on the basis of marks
obtained in such written examination 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 or National Rural Health Mission."
19. After the notification of 24.11.2011 when the recruitment on
the post of Pharmacist was initiated and carried out, the
candidates/employees working under the Cooperative
Department or Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar complained of
hardship because bonus marks were denied to them despite
working on the post of Pharmacist/similar work and despite
having the big length of experience on working. However,
this Court protected their interest. After the notification
dated 24.11.2011 and making amended Rules of 2011, by
notification, dated 21.2.2012 the Rajasthan Medical & Health
Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (called
hereinafter as the 2012 Rules of 2012 for convenience) were
framed and the first proviso to Rule 19 (after the 2011
amendment) was substituted. For the purposes of award of
bonus marks on the basis of the similar work and length of
experience even under the Cooperative Department or
Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar were added. The substituted first
proviso to Rule 19 - after the 2011 amendment is as below:
"Provided that in case of appointment to the post
of Pharmacist, the written examination shall be
conducted by the Appointing Authority and the
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(27 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
merit shall be prepared on the basis of marks
obtained in such written examination 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, Medicare Relief Society, AIDS
Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative
Department or Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar."
20. Later, a further notification (dated 6.2.2013) was issued;
through it the working experience on similar work of
Pharmacists in the Cooperative Department and Sahkari
Upbhokta Bhandar were added. On 26.2.2013 an
advertisement was issued, setting out benefit of bonus
marks to candidates/employees working under the
Cooperative Department and the Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar.
The cumulative effect of the advertisement dated 26.2.2013
and the amended rules was that grant of bonus marks on the
basis of length of experience on similar work of Pharmacist
the bonus marks was permissible to the extent of 10% for
one completed year of the experience maximum to 30%
bonus marks.
21. The petitioners in the second batch urge that after the
amended Rules of 2012 and the advertisement dated
26.2.2013 and further completion of the later recruitment
process and strangely the impugned notification was issued
on 28.6.2018 in exercise of the powers conferred under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The 1965 Rules
were again amended and in place of existing first proviso to
Rule 19 (as existed up till the date of the notification dated
28.6.2018) the following proviso was substituted:-
"Provided that in case of appointment to the post
of Pharmacist, the written examination shall be
conducted by the Appointing Authority/Board and
the merit shall be prepared on the basis of marks
obtained in such written examination and such
bons 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."
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(28 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
22. It is argued that the substituted first proviso to Rule 19 of
the 1965 Rules by the impugned amendment the benefit of
bonus marks -having regard to the length of experience on
similar work/ Pharmacist interalia under the Cooperative
Department and Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar has been
deleted. The petitioners contend that the impugned deletion
and subsequent proviso, after amendment is wholly violative
of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and is
arbitrary and illegal and further contrary to the principle of
equality before law. Counsel submits that this has resulted in
discrimination in as much as by way of amended Rules the
benefit to the employees/candidates working under
Cooperative Department and Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar has
been taken away and denied.
23. Like in the case of Rule 19 - with regard to grant of bonus
marks for Lab Technicians and Assistants, it is urged by the
state that the petitioners' claim is without merit. It is argued
in this regard that the state consciously wished to award
bonus marks to only those Pharmacists who worked with the
state, or the Chief Minister, BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh,
National Rural Health Mission, Medicare Relief Society, AIDS
Control Society. It is urged again that the award of bonus
marks for previous experience or what the public employer
determines to be equivalent, or what such employer wishes
to accord preference are not matters which fall within the
domain of the executive.
24. Counsel for the petitioners relied on B. Manmad Reddy & Ors
v Chandra Prakash Reddy, 2010 (3) SCC 314, to urge that
the distinction between employees who work in the state
government or in the specified programmes, and others is
artificial and irrational. Therefore, argue counsel, the so
called distinction is not based on any intelligible differentia.
Likewise, even if that differentia is upheld, it has no nexus
with the object of ensuring that experienced persons are
recruited.
25. Counsel argued that there is no change in the fact situation
to exclude experience gained in working for semi
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(29 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
government and autonomous organizations, because such
experience is akin to working in the state's department.
Furthermore, as far as co-operative societies are concerned,
the state funds such organizations to further its medical
programmes and missions. The experience gained by its
employees therefore, cannot be denied bonus marks,
through the impugned amendments.
Analysis and reasoning:
26. It is evident from the above facts that in the first batch, the
petitioners challenge the qualifying experience criteria,
changed through the impugned amendment of 2018. Earlier-
(with effect from 28.06.2013) the essential qualification for
direct recruitment to the post of Lab Assistant was
Secondary or its equivalent and a diploma/certificate course
in Medical Lab Technician from an institute recognized by the
State or, (instead of a diploma/certificate), one year's
experience in medical lab run by the State Government. This
has now been substituted by the impugned amendment. The
essential qualification prescribed now is a Senior Secondary
with Science or its equivalent with any diploma in Medical
Laboratory Technology from a State recognized institute. The
transitional provision however stipulates that for the first
recruitment after the impugned Amendment Rules, in 2018,
instead of Senior Secondary with Science or its equivalent,
candidates with Secondary or equivalent qualifications with
diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology from a State
recognized institute (or instead of such diploma), candidates
having minimum three years' experience of working as
Laboratory Assistant, Laboratory Technician in the State
Government Hospitals on contract basis or through Service
Provider Agency, would be deemed eligible.
27. The petitioners argument is that preferring only Laboratory
Assistants and Laboratory Technicians working in the State
Government Hospitals on contract basis or through Service
Provider Agencies and not giving similar treatment to the
Laboratory Technicians/Laboratory Assistants, working in the
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(30 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
health sector, especially in cooperatives or autonomous and
semi-Government institutions, or Central Government
organizations (like ESI or ECHS) amounts to arbitrariness.
28. At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners
claim to equivalence is based upon their experience not in
the Government, but in the health sector generally. The
petitioners are not able to substantiate that the State, as an
employer, is under an obligation to ensure that the work
experience that they have gathered, in the cooperative
sector or autonomous organizations where they worked for
three years, should necessarily be considered. Although the
State is bound by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India, yet as a public employer, it is entitled to prescribe
qualifications which are suited to its organizations. It can
certainly decide in this regard- what counts for qualifying
experience. This area is entirely within the domain of the
public employer i.e. in this case, the State.
29. What the State appears to have kept in mind is its object in
having three years' experience, while prescribing essential
qualifications for Lab Technicians/Lab Assistants is that those
working on contract basis in state laboratories, government
hospitals etc. either directly under contract with the State or
through third party agencies, alone would be entitled to treat
such experience as equivalent to the other essential
conditions.
30. This Court notices significantly that the stipulation with
respect to essential qualifications, in the wake of the
amendment, is that the concerned candidate should
henceforth have possess Senior Secondary with Science or
its equivalent and also should possess a diploma in Medical
Laboratory Technology from an institute recognized by the
State. It is only for the purposes of first recruitment- after
the amendment that the qualification is relaxed so to say a
Secondary or its equivalent and a diploma in Medical
Laboratory Technology from State recognized institution, or
instead of the latter, those possessing three years minimum
experience as Laboratory Assistant/Laboratory Technicians
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(31 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
working on contract with the State or working on contract
through placement agencies with the State. Thus, the State
appears to prefer those working with its institutions or in the
State Departments in its hospitals, though on contract basis.
This is apparently aimed at ensuring that through this first
recruitment, regular appointment is offered to those deemed
eligible in the selection/recruitment process. Having regard
to the fact that these individuals worked in various State
institutions, on contract basis and also appear to have
discharged their duties in many instances, in remote areas
and stressful conditions, the choice of the State in preferring
these for first recruitment and to accord them
permanent/regular status, cannot, by any means, be
characterized as arbitrary or discriminatory.
31. In Roop Chand Adlakha v Delhi Development Authority AIR
1989 SC 307, after citing State of Jammu and Kashmir v.
Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors., (1974) I LLJ 121 (SC) held
that:-
"The State, consistent with the requirements of
the promotional posts and in the interest of the
efficiency of the service, is not precluded from
conferring eligibility on Diploma Holders
conditioning it by other requirements which may,
as here, include certain quantum of service
experience. In the present case, eligibility
determination was made by a cumulative
criterion of a certain educational qualification
plus a particular quantum of service experience.
It cannot, in our opinion, be said, as postulated
by the High Court, that the choice of the State
was either to recognize Diploma Holders as
"eligible" for promotion or wholly exclude them
as "not eligible". If the educational qualification
by itself was recognized as conferring eligibility
for promotion, then the superimposition of
further conditions such as a particular period of
service, selectively, on the Diploma Holders
alone to their disadvantage might become
discriminatory. This does not prevent the State
from formulating a policy which prescribes as an
essential part of the conditions for the very
eligibility that the candidate must have a
particular qualification plus a stipulated quantum
of service experience. It is stated that on the
basis of the "Vaish Committee" report, the
authorities considered the infusion of higher
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(32 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
academic and technical quality in the personnel
requirements in the relevant cadres of
Engineering Services necessary. These are
essentially matters of policy. Unless the provision
is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or to bring
about grossly unfair results, judicial policy should
be one of judicial restraint. The prescriptions
may be somewhat cumbersome or produce some
hardship in their application in some individual
cases ; but they cannot be struck down as
unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary. The High
Court in our opinion, was not justified in striking
down the rules as violative of Articles 14 and
16."
32. The above observations were quoted and applied in
Shailendra Dania & Ors. vs. S.P. Dubey & Ors, 2007 (5) SCC
535. The decision of a state to frame its recruitment policies
which might exclude some potential candidates from
consideration, per se does not result in discrimination. The
left over or excluded category of individuals have to show
something apart from the exclusion that the classification
was arbitrary or hostile. The Supreme Court held, in State of
Mysore v P. Narasinga Rao AIR 1968 SC 349 that :
"It is settled that though Article 14 forbids class
legislation, it does not forbid reasonable
classification for the purpose of legislation.
When any impugned rule or statutory provision
is assailed on the ground that it contravenes
Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two
tests are satisfied. The first test is that the
classification on which it is founded must be
based on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes persons or things grouped
together from others left out of the group, and
the second test is that the differentia in question
must have a reasonable relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory
provision in question. In other words, there
must be some rational nexus between the basis
of classification and the object intended to be
achieved by the statute or the rule. As we have
already stated. Articles 14 and 16 form part of
the same constitutional code of guarantees and
supplement each other. In other words, Article
16 is only an instance of the application of the
general rule of equality laid clown in Article 14
and it should be construed as such. Hence there
is no denial of equality of opportunity unless the
person who complains of discrimination is
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(33 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
equally situated with the person or persons who
are alleged to have been favoured. Article 16(1)
does not bar a reasonable classification of
employees or reasonable tests for their
selection."
33. This court is of opinion that the above decisions clearly hold
that the public employer or state has the duty and the right
to frame recruitment policies, including with regard to
essential qualifications and experience. Unless the
classification is shown to be palpably arbitrary, the state's
choice in preferring a particular kind of qualification or
experience cannot be called arbitrary. For these reasons, the
challenge has to fail on this count.
34. So far as the second batch is concerned i.e. candidates who
seek to apply for the post of Pharmacists (as well as those
working who wish to apply for the post of Lab Assistant/Lab
Technician), and complained of arbitrariness in regard to
exclusion of experience, of working with employers or under
schemes which are not covered under a programme or
scheme specified in Rule 19 of the amended Rules, this Court
notices that what is in issue is not the prescription of
essential qualification; rather it is the award of bonus marks
for previous experience. Such cases stand on even weaker
footing than those in the first batch. The State wishes to give
preference and award bonus marks, to the employees
working in specified programmes or specified employers
(National Rural Health Mission, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan
Raksha Kosh, Medicare Relief Society, AIDS Control Society).
35. The complaint of the petitioners in both categories i.e. for
the post of Pharmacist as well as those aspiring to be
selected as Lab Assistant is that the previous policy of
granting bonus marks to those working on contract basis in
the Rajasthan Cooperative Department or cooperatives or
other Central Government organizations, have been
excluded. In this regard, the petitioners rely upon a letter of
08.02.2016, which had stated that the definition of
"Government" under the Rajasthan General Clauses Act,
1955, includes the Central Government and that for the
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(34 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
purposes of grant of bonus marks, individuals working in any
organization classifiable and falling within the definition of
"State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, would
be entitled to relief.
36. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's complaint of
arbitrariness or discrimination in regard to exclusion of bonus
marks for having worked as Pharmacist or Lab Technicians in
the unspecified categories, i.e. those working in
cooperatives, Central Government or some autonomous
organizations, is insubstantial. Unlike in the case of
equivalence in essential qualifications (where a limited
review is permissible, if a claimant can successfully
demonstrate that equivalence is a matter of law either
through binding enactments or rules framed under it), the
award of bonus marks is entirely discretionary. In this
regard, it has to be reiterated that no candidate seeking
public recruitment has a right to claim preference. That the
State or a public employer might fashion its policies in a
particular manner to accord preference and consequently
award bonus marks to only a specified category of previous
experience, cannot be termed arbitrary. The only exception
to this can be if award of bonus marks is to entirely
unrelated experience i.e. previous experience which has no
connection with the duties related to post for which
recruitment is to be held.
37. The kind of experience to which bonus marks can now be
awarded i.e. NRHM., employment under the State or its
hospitals, AIDS Control Society etc., are intrinsically
connected with and proximate to the posts of Pharmacists
and Lab Technicians/Lab Assistants, working in the State
Government. The recruitment is for the State Government.
Therefore, the award of bonus marks to the four categories-
which are preferred categories, cannot be a matter of judicial
review. In this regard the Court is also cognizant of the fact
that the State has the exclusive domain over the grant of
such bonus marks while according preference to the one
class of employees or another as long as the previous
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(35 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
experience bares connection to the post or posts for which
the recruitment is to take place.
38. In Sachivalaya Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Union v.
State of Rajasthan, (2017) 11 SCC 421, the question was
the award of preference through bonus marks to candidates
who had previously worked on contractual terms with the
state, or were still continuing, through a system of
weightage, at the stage of regular recruitment. The Court
upheld weightage in favour of experience gained during
contractual or ad-hoc appointment and observed as follows:
"18. In spite of a pointed question, the learned
counsel for the first respondent could not point
out anything in Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] judgment which either
dealt with or prohibited the State from giving
weightage for the service rendered by the
employees where services were used by the
State either temporarily or on ad hoc bases
(including daily-wage basis) irrespective of the
regularity of their initial entry into the service. All
that this Court declared in Umadevi (3)
case[State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006)
4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is that such
people cannot claim to be appointed
automatically on the ground that their services
were utilised on temporary basis for considerably
long periods.
19. Even with reference to such claims Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4
SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] did not declare
that in no case such claims should be
entertained. This Court opined that there is a
justification to consider the case of certain class
of employees who have put in 10 years of such
service (ad hoc or temporary): (SCC p. 42, para
53)
"53. ... In that context, the Union of India, the
State Governments and their instrumentalities
should take steps to regularise as a one-time
measure, the services of
such irregularly appointed, who have worked for
ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but
not under cover of orders of the courts or of
tribunals and should further ensure that regular
recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant
sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in
cases where temporary employees or daily
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(36 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
wagers are being now employed. The process
must be set in motion within six months from
this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if
any already made, but not sub judice, need not
be reopened based on this judgment, but there
should be no further bypassing of the
constitutional requirement and regularising or
making permanent, those not duly appointed as
per the constitutional scheme."
39. In Dr. M. Shalini v The Secretary to Government Health &
Family Welfare Department, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 1833, the
question was with respect to grant of bonus marks to candi-
dates who served in rural areas. The Madras High Court ex-
plained the rationale for grant of such bonus marks or pref-
erence, in the following terms:
"9. The object underlying the award of additional
marks is to encourage the medical students to
serve in the remote/difficult areas to ensure that
access to medical facilities reaches the poor and
downtrodden living in the rural areas. An area is
being classified as remote/difficult based on
various factors and when clause 38 of the
prospectus categorically stipulates certain areas
as remote/difficult area and the petitioners are
admittedly working in rural areas, they are
entitled for award of bonus marks. In such
circumstances, there will be a direction to the
respondents 4 and 5 to award additional/ bonus
marks to the petitioners for the services
rendered by them in the rural area as per clause
38..."
40. In Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Jagdish
Chandra Singh Bora, (2014) 8 SCC 644 the Supreme Court
reiterated that the provision for bonus marks to a class of
candidates, or denial of such facility is a matter of policy. The
court turned down an argument that grant of bonus marks
was necessary in view of a previous Supreme Court
judgment which had ruled that employers should give
preference to trained apprentices. The Supreme Court held
that denial of such preference or bonus marks to trained
apprentices was not arbitrary and held as follows:
"19. A perusal of the aforesaid would clearly
show that all the candidates including the
respondents, who applied in response to the
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(37 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
advertisement dated 27-11-2001 were governed
by the 2001 Rules. Rule 5 provides
comprehensive criteria for making a selection to
the post of Junior Engineer. The written
examination was to be conducted by IIT,
Roorkee. The selection was to be made on the
basis of the total marks obtained by the
candidates in the written examination and the
interview. The list of successful candidates of the
written examination was to be made available by
IIT, Roorkee to PSCU. Thereafter, PSCU was to
call the candidates for interview on the basis of
minimum qualifying marks in the written
examination. Section 5(11) provides that PSCU
shall prepare a merit list by adding marks
obtained by the candidates in the written
examination and the interview. If two or more
candidates secured equal marks, the candidates
securing more marks in the written examination
shall be preferred. In case, the marks obtained
by two candidates in written examination are
also equal, the older candidate shall be preferred
to the younger. Therefore, it is evident that
consciously the State had not provided for any
preference to be given to the trained apprentices
under the Rules. Keeping in view the provisions
contained in the Rules, the State Government
issued an advertisement on 27-11-2001. The
advertisement also did not provide for any
weightage to be given to the trained apprentices.
All the candidates including the respondents
participated in the selection process, being fully
aware that no preference will be given to the
trained apprentices. This was in spite of the
directions issued by this Court in U.P. Parivahan
Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh case [U.P.
SRTC v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs
Berozgar Sangh, (1995) 2 SCC 01] . Therefore, it
cannot be said that any accrued or vested right
had accrued to the trained apprentices under the
2001 Rules.
20. The result of the written examination was
declared on 10-7-2003. The interview was
conducted by PSCU from 18-12-2003 to 22-12-
2003. Thereafter, only the result was to be
declared and the appointments were to be made
on the basis of merit obtained by the candidates
in the selection process.
21. As noticed earlier, the 2001 Rules specifically
provided that the Rules are applicable only for
the direct recruitment in the year 2002 for
subordinate engineering services. The Rules also
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(38 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
make it clear that the same shall become
ineffective after the process of recruitment is
completed. Thereafter, the selected candidates
shall be governed by the Service Rules and the
government orders applicable in the
Government. This makes it abundantly clear that
on 12-11-2002, the 2001 Rules ceased to exist."
41. There are three other judgments of this Court. In Ram Singh
Barwal v State of Rajasthan 2010 SCC OnLine Raj 4794, it
was held that such award of bonus marks to only specified
categories does not result in discrimination:
" 16. Now, we come to the facts of this case to
judge the issue as to whether there exists
discrimination in the State action, which is
violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of
India?
17. For awarding bonus marks for teaching
experience of each year, there exists two groups;
(i) Teachers of the private recognized institutions
and (ii) Teachers of the educational projects like
Para Teachers etc. Whether two categories can be
said to be equal is the moot question to be
decided. If the answer is that they are equal, then
different bonus marks cannot be provided, but at
the same time, if two categories are unequals,
definitely they cannot be made equals by
providing same bonus marks. The Teachers in the
government projects are those who are working
in the remote areas not in regular pay scale but
are getting honorarium. Their services are co-
terminus to the projects. Those projects were
brought to increase the literacy in the State, thus
persons working in educational projects were to
motivate children of the village to come for
education. Such Teachers are not entitled for any
other benefit than honorarium, thus benefit of
gratuity, selection scale, provident fund etc. has
not been provided to them. As against the
aforesaid, Teachers in the private recognized
institutions were entitled to regular pay scale
apart from the benefit of gratuity and selection
scale etc., in view of catena of the judgments of
this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Recognition of those private institutions is subject
to award of regular pay scale and other benefit to
the Teachers, who are working in the aided or
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(39 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
unaided institutions, thus those Teachers
generally work in the urban areas.
18. Some of the counsel urged that even few
Teachers in the private recognized institutions
were not awarded regular pay scale, however, it
cannot be taken as a guiding factor because
Teachers in the private recognized institutions are
otherwise eligible for all benefits as mentioned
above and if they failed to take such benefit, it
cannot result to their benefit apart from the fact
that cases of few Teachers cannot govern the
issue. Taking note of aforesaid facts, it clearly
comes out that two categories cannot be said to
be equal. In view of the aforesaid, different
treatment for award of bonus marks can be
provided by the Government because it is then
based on reasonable classification and otherwise
if unequals are treated as equals, then also it
violates Articles 14 &16 of the Constitution of
India. If the issue is judged from other point of
view, then appellants have claimed parity with
others without showing that they stand on same
footing with that of the Teachers in educational
projects. In view of aforesaid, we find no error in
the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
19. Now, the question comes about the definition
of 'teaching experience'. It is submitted that
definition of 'teaching experience' provides no
difference between a Teacher of educational
project than that of a Teacher of a private
recognized institution. It is true that perusal of
the definition of 'teaching experience' does not
provide any difference between Teachers of the
recognized institutions than of the educational
projects. It is, however, necessary to look into
the fact that it is mainly for judging the eligibility
under the Rules. Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008
provides academic and professional qualifications
of a candidate. For ready reference aforesaid Rule
is quoted thus:--
"Rule 14. Academic and Professional
Qualifications.-A candidate for direct recruitment
to the posts specified in the Schedule shall, in
additional to such experience as is required shall
possess--
(i) the qualification and experience given in
Column 6 of the schedule, and
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(40 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
(ii) working knowledge of Hindi written in
Devnagri Scripts and knowledge of Rajasthan
culture."
20. Perusal of the aforesaid Rule shows that
qualifications and experience would be as given
in Column 6 of the schedule. Column 6 of the
Schedule provides five years continuing teaching
experience without any break in any recognized
educational institutions/educational projects. This
is apart from the educational qualifications as
given therein. The word used under the schedule
so as under the Rule is to be given meaning as
defined under the Rules of 2008. The
respondents have made no discrimination on that
count and in fact all those who are having five
years continuous teaching experience without
any break in any private recognized educational
institutional/educational/projects have been
given same treatment while judging eligibility.
21. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is not a
case where even definition of "teaching
experience" as given under the Rules of 2008
has been violated. Thus, we are of the opinion
that the administrative action of the respondents
cannot be said to be discriminatory or illegal in
award of different bonus marks for selection to
the post of Prabodhak."
42. Again, in Mool Chand Jat v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 3
RLW 2494, award of bonus marks to Pharmacists, with a
certain kind of experience in the Government, was upheld:
"8. The benefit of bonus marks has been given
under amended Rule 16 to the Pharmacists, who
have obtained the experience of Government
Schemes/Institutions under Cooperative
Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar.
Experience gained in private job has not been
included for grant of bonus marks. In our
opinion, private job stands on different footing
and cannot be said to be on similar terms and
conditions as rendered in Government
Institutions etc. as provided in amended Rule 19.
The private Pharmacists cannot be treated of
same class, hence, they cannot take plea of
discrimination. It is open to the State
Government to give bonus marks to particular
class of person. As there is difference in
conditions, liabilities, requirement of job, the
petitioners cannot claim similar treatment. The
classification made by the Government cannot be
said to be illegal or arbitrary. It is open to the
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)
(41 of 45) [CW-12838/2018]
Government to classify person for such purpose.
Classification made cannot be said to be
irrational. Article 14 permits classification on
different bases. The responsibility of Government
job/cooperative is different than private job.
Since there is qualitative difference also in jobs,
classification cannot be said to be arbitrary. We
are not able to accept the submission that
private work can be equated in all respects with
the jobs enumerated in amended proviso to Rule
19 of the Rules of 1965. The condition of service
responsibility differs from job to job, thus,
private Pharmacists cannot claim part of the
same class. Hence, plea of discrimination is not
available to them.
***************************
12. In view of the above, if benefit of bonus marks has been extended only to the Pharmacists, who have gained experience under the Government Institutions, Cooperative Department, Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar etc. as enumerated in the amended Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 and such benefit has not been made available to the private Pharmacists, who have gained experience in private institutes/shops, it cannot be said that action of the Government was arbitrary or violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. Classification made by the Government does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness, rather it appears to be reasonable and rational one. No case of discrimination is made out.
13. Apart from this, it is apparent that advertisement was initially published on 26.11.2011; later on, amended advertisement was issued on 30.12.2011 and last date for submission of on-line application and hard copy application was fixed as 4.1.2012 and 9.1.2012 respectively. Thereafter, vide notification dated 21.2.2012, amendment in Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 was made with retrospective effect from 24.11.2011 and in view of the said amendment, a fresh advertisement was issued on 24.2.2012 incorporating award of bonus marks to the candidates, who have gained experience as Pharmacists in Government Institutions etc. as enumerated in the amended Rule 19 and last date for submission of on-line application was fixed as 2.3.2012 and for submission of hard copy application, last date was fixed as 12.3.2012. Thereafter, examinations were conducted from 15th to 17th June, 2012 and the result was declared on 29.6.2012."
(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM)(42 of 45) [CW-12838/2018] 43. The judgment in Mitendra Singh Rathore v. State of
Rajasthan, 2013 (4) RLW 3451 (Raj.), dealt with a challenge to the denial of bonus marks in respect of experience gained by candidates who were otherwise qualified to participate, by a comparable restricting condition: that such preferential or bonus marks would be awarded in respect of previous employment in government projects or government sponsored schemes. The court held that the classification was reasonable and justified and observed as follows:
"17. The experience required under Proviso second of Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996 is on definite posts under definite schemes sponsored by the Panchayati Raj Institutions and under MGNREGA. This too is having a rational as the schemes are required to be implemented with a new vision of development and governance at the grass root level through the Panchayat Raj Institutions as per thrust of the 73 constitutional amendment and the State rd enactment made in consonance thereto. The need of experience hands in service, thus, is rational and required, but the issue deserves consideration is that whether the experience earned on the posts aforesaid in the schemes concerned have any distinction on the count of different mode of employment. It is not in dispute that the main requirement of the statutory weightage is experience on certain posts in definite schemes and not the mode of employment. It is also a position accepted that the experience gained on the posts of Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A.), Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Co-ordinator IEC, Coordinator Training and Coordinator Supervision in MGNREGA or any other scheme of Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj is same and that does not differ due to mode of employment. The persons employed directly by the Panchayti Raj Institutions or under MGNREGA or through the placement agencies working on the posts aforesaid in MGNREGA or in other schemes of Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj discharge same duties with same responsibilities and liabilities, as such, the experience gained is also same, thus, the experience gained by the persons employed through the placement agencies in no manner (Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM) (43 of 45) [CW-12838/2018] can be treated as less or not relevant to have necessary skill, knowledge, insight or any other merit required by Panchayati Raj and Zila Parishad Service.
18. The object of granting weightage to the experienced hands is to have meritorious persons with insight, skill and knowledge of the job and that in no manner shall have adverse effect on giving weightage to the persons who acquired experience on being employed through placement agencies. The classification sought to be made under Proviso Second to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996 on the basis of mode of employment or to say by denying weightage to the persons employed on posts of Junior Technical Assistant (J.T.A.), Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Data Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Co-ordinator IEC, Coordinator Training and Coordinator Supervision through placement agencies in MGNREGA or any other scheme of Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, as a matter of fact, is having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by granting weightage in the form of bonus marks to the experienced hands, therefore, the classification made under Proviso Second to Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996 on the basis of the mode of employment, is having no rational, hence, is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
19. The distinction sought to be made with the persons employed through the placement agencies is that those were under the control of the placement agencies and, as such, necessary details pertaining to their experience were with the placement agencies only. Much emphasis is given by the respondents that the State Government or the Panchayati Raj Institutions, as the case may be, entered into agreement with the placement agencies leaving it open for the placement agencies to accomplish the task given through the persons employed by that agency without definite identification of the person concern by the Panchayati Raj Institution. The stand taken by the respondents is not at all acceptable at its face. It is not in dispute that the placement agencies are nothing but contractor to supply labour force. The roll of the labour force supplied through contractor is available with the principal employer i.e. the State Government and different Panchayati Raj Institutions who availed services of such persons through placement (Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM) (44 of 45) [CW-12838/2018] agencies. The State Government, as such, is having all necessary details with regard to the work done by the persons employed through the placement agencies.
On having these details, measurement of the experience acquired by the persons rendering service in MGNREGA or under different schemes relating to Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj can very well be assessed by the respondents. In any case, this procedural problem can not be a reason valid to make an unreasonable classification. At this stage it is also pertinent to note that the Panchayat Raj Institutions have already issued experience certificates to the persons employed through placement agencies."
44. This Court is of the opinion that the weight of judicial authorities overwhelmingly lies against the petitioners. It is also noteworthy that the petitioners are candidates for public employment; they are demanding that the experience gained by them (not in the government or in its departments) should be awarded bonus marks. Neither Article 14, nor Article 16, in the opinion of the court would aid them to argue that fashioning a recruitment policy which factors bonus marks for specified categories of experience gained can, to the extent it excludes any experience be termed discriminatory. Those who work in government establishments or the specified categories of public employment, form a distinct class, which the state wishes to prioritize, in considering for selection, for its hospitals and medical estblishments. This decision falls within the realm of executive policy, over which the court is ill equipped to judge on the merits.
45. This Court is further unpersuaded with the petitioners' argument as regards withdrawal of the letter dated 08-02- 2016. That letter no doubt, advanced an interpretation that for state employment (i.e Rajasthan Civil Service Rules) all experience gained in departments of the state as well as corporations and bodies falling within the wider description of "State" under Article 12 are relevant. However, this (Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM) (45 of 45) [CW-12838/2018] concession was withdrawn. This court cannot fault the state for withdrawal of that letter, because the Rules clearly envision a narrow definition of "Government" and confine the expression to the Government of Rajasthan. Therefore, the state was correct in not extending parity to employees of Central government or autonomous institutions etc. Likewise, the exclusion of experience gained in corporations and co-operative societies cannot be termed as arbitrary.
46. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that there is no merit in the challenge to the amendments, in both batches of writ petitions. All the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed; the pending applications too are disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR /s-68- 95 (18.07.19)/ Reserved) (Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 09:09:14 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)