Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bharat Singh vs State Of Raj And Ors on 26 November, 2018
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13225/2018
Bharat Singh S/o Shri Summera, aged about 35 years, R/o
Village Mahmadpura, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical and Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical & Health Services, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Admn.) Medical & Health
Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C Scheme,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Iliyas Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Shyam Arya, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Order
26/11/2018
Mr.Iliyas Khan appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been illegally and arbitrarily denied bonus marks for experience of "similar work" for appointment to the post of Nurse Grade-II under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Service Rules, 1965 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1965') as provided under the second proviso to the aforesaid Rule 19. According to Mr.Iliyas Khan and as pleaded in the petition the petitioner claims to have (2 of 7) [CW-13225/2018] worked on contractual basis as a Staff Nurse with the Civil Hospital on work related to NRHM (NHM). Experience certificate signed by the Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Palwal reflecting the petitioner's said experience, between 24.1.2014 to 31.3.2014, 2.4.2014 to 31.3.2015, 2.4.2015 to 31.7.2015 and continuing till the date of the experience certificate dated 15.6.2017 has been annexed to the petition. Mr.Iliyas Khan further submitted that the condition in the advertisement dated 30.5.2018 that the experience certificate for grant of bonus marks should be only in the format prescribed is wholly arbitrary as the petitioner's employer in Haryana where he worked purportedly under NRHM (NHM) is not obliged to issue an experience certificate in the form prescribed. Mr.Iliyas Khan further submitted that the condition in the advertisement dated 30.5.2018 as to the experience certificates issued after the last date for submission of the application form for appointment of Nurse Grade-II being of no avail is also wholly unreasonable and unrelated to the requirement of experience of "similar work" relevant to the appointment of Nurse Grade-II.
(3 of 7) [CW-13225/2018] Mr.Shyam Arya, AAG submitted that (Annex-4) the experience certificate dated 15.6.2017 purportedly issued by the Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Palwal is not on the letter head of the Hospital and has no endorsement of the authorized signatory or the competent officer of NRHM--experience with which amongst others as defined in the second proviso to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 entitles a candidate to bonus marks as prescribed. On this count the experience certificate is a suspect document aside of being redundant. More so in the context of Annex-5 to the petition, the letter of contract dated 1.4.2015 which indicates that the petitioner was engaged only by the Civil Hospital, Palwal having its Headquarter at Palwal as a staff nurse and his resultant employment from the record had nothing whatsoever to do with NRHM (NHM) experience. Mr.Shyam Arya, AAG submitted that an experience certificate cannot be contrary to the contract under which the petitioner was admittedly engaged. Mr.Shyam Arya, AAG submitted that in this view of the matter the petitioner not having worked under the NRHM (NHM) or any other authority/ institutes referred to in the second proviso to Rule 19 of (4 of 7) [CW-13225/2018] the Rules of 1965 is not entitled to any bonus marks for evaluation of his merit for appointment as Nurse Grade-II under the Rules of 1965.
Heard. Considered.
The second proviso to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 reads as under :-
"Provided that in case of appointment to the posts other than Pharmacist, which are not in preview of the Commission, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of marks obtained in such qualifying academic examination or professional examination or both as specified in the schedule appended to these rules and such bonus marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience on similar work under the Government, National Rural Health Mission and Medi Care Relief Society."
The petitioner claims to have worked with the NRHM (now NHM) and on this basis entitled to bonus marks under the aforesaid proviso. But Annex-5 to the petition is the Letter of Contract by which the petitioner claims to have been engaged as Staff Nurse with Civil Hospital Palwal, Haryana--no reference to NRHM (NHM) or the petitioner's work relating thereto is evident in the said Letter of Contract dated 1.4.2015. The experience certificate dated 15.6.2017 purportedly issued by the Senior Medical Officer, Palwal in the context above, stating that the (5 of 7) [CW-13225/2018] petitioner worked 24.1.2014 to 31.3.2014, 2.4.2014 to 31.3.2015, 2.4.2015 to 31.7.2015 (continue) as Staff Nurse in the Civil Hospital, Palwal under NHM is a suspect document for more than one reason. One, while the petitioner's engagement under the Letter of Contract dated 1.4.2015 is only with Civil Hospital, Palwal without reference to NRHM (NHM) how could the experience certificate so say ? Further the experience certificate is not on the letter head of the Civil Hospital, Palwal but on a plain paper-- which is rather unusual and hence suspect. More importantly it is not in the prescribed format as required by the advertisement dated 30.5.2018 nor signed by the competent/ authorized officer of NRHM. And a Senior Medical Officer of the Civil Hospital on his own could not testify to the engagement of the petitioner with NRHM (NHM). Only the Project Director or competent officer of NRHM (NHM) could have so done. He has not so done.
The benefit of bonus marks on experience is in a manner of speaking an incentive. Where statute provides for an incentive--such as bonus marks on experience of similar work as in the instant case, the appointing authority has to be extremely (6 of 7) [CW-13225/2018] cautious that undeserving candidates do not avail the benefit. Towards ensuring this end, substantial compliance with the manner and form of the experience certificate being issued as required by the appointing authority is necessary. The advertisement dated 30.5.2018 provided that the experience certificate for availing bonus marks should be in the prescribed format annexed to it and signed by the competent authority. I am of the considered view that wholesale deviation from the aforesaid requirement is not at all permissible and were it to be permitted it would open a pandora's box of litigation as to whether the experience certificate submitted is good for the prescribed incentive or not and open the appointment process itself to a series of disputes about the genuineness of the experience certificates taken into consideration and therefore inevitably delay the appointment process to public detriment.
In the facts of the instant case the petitioner has thus not been able to satisfy the Court that he worked with/ for the NRHM/ NHM--as claimed. Nor has the petitioner submitted the requisite experience certificate in substantial compliance as (7 of 7) [CW-13225/2018] required by the advertisement--of his purported experience, duly signed/ endorsed by the competent authority-- the Project Director/ or other competent officer of the concerned NRHM. A Senior Civil Surgeon of the Civil Hospital Palwal--not himself associated from anything the record of the case with NRHM (NHM) could not issue a certificate to the petitioner of having worked with NRHM (NHM). Such a certificate cannot pass muster vis-a-vis the second proviso to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965, or the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 30.5.2018 under which the petitioner seeks consideration for appointment as Nurse Grade-II.
In the circumstances, I find no force in the petition. Dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA), J Himanshu/279 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)