Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 971 (RAJ)

Pradeep Kumar Dadhich v. The State of Rajasthan

2014-04-21

AMITAVA ROY, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition, while praying for following reliefs: "It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed:- A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, Rule 19 of Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent it debars the petitioner from availing the benefit of bonus marks on the basis of length of experience on the ground of engagement through placement agency. B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the experience gained from work through placement agency while performing the same duties for the respondents may kindly be considered as equivalent to experience gained while rendering direct services to the respondents for the purpose of grant of bonus marks in pursuance of the advertisement dated 10.07.2013 (Annex.4) for direct recruitment. C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the experience gained from working on the post TBHV while performing the same duties for the respondents may kindly be considered as equivalent to experience gained while rendering direct services on the post of P.H.C. Asha Supervisor to the respondents for the purpose of grant of bonus marks in pursuance of the advertisement dated 10.07.2013 (Annex.4) for direct recruitment D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to award the petitioner bonus marks (30 marks) having regard to the length of experience on similar nature of work done in Government Project for the selection process to be held in pursuance of the advertisement dated 10.07.2013 (Annex.4) E. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the petitioner candidature while granting them bonus marks on the basis of their length of service/experience for the purpose of the selection process initiated in pursuance of the advertisement dated 10.07.2013 (Annex.4) F. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to afford the petitioner appointment on the post of P.H.C. Asha Supervisor in pursuance of the advertisement dated 10.07.2013 (Annex.4) if otherwise they stand in merit. G. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. G. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. H. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs." 2. The petitioner, who is working on the post of TBHV on contract basis through placement agency i.e. Prayatna Sewa Sansthan, Bhilwara, is claiming parity with the persons working as P.H.C. Asha Supervisor under the Government, National Rural Health Mission and Medicare Relief Society for the purpose of grant of bonus marks in recruitment on the post of P.H.C. Asha Supervisor advertised through advertisement dated 10.07.2013 under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (for short 'the Rules of 1965' hereinafter). 3. It is contended by the petitioner that the action of the respondents of including P.H.C. Asha Supervisor in the criterion of giving bonus marks on the basis of length of experience and of excluding TBHV workers from the same benefit is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because the petitioner, while working as TBHV is discharging similar duties as discharged by the P.H.C. Asha Supervisor. It is also contended that as the respondents have not included the post of TBHV for the purpose of grant of benefit of bonus marks, the petitioner cannot get the benefit of bonus marks on the basis of experience and, therefore, the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 be declared ultra vires. According to the learned counsel, there is no intelligible differentia in treating different the candidates who are working on the post of TBHV from the persons working in other Government schemes such as National Rural Health Mission, Medicare Relief Society etc. It is further contended that since the petitioner, while working as TBHV, is discharging duties similar to the P.H.C. Asha Supervisor, he is entitled for benefit of bonus marks as the persons working as P.H.C. Asha Supervisor are entitled for. 4. Having given anxious consideration to the submissions made and having examined the material placed on record, we are clearly of the view that this writ petition remains bereft of substance and does not merit admission. 5. 4. Having given anxious consideration to the submissions made and having examined the material placed on record, we are clearly of the view that this writ petition remains bereft of substance and does not merit admission. 5. It appears that the Government has issued a Notification dated 06.02.2013 specifying the bonus marks to be given to the persons working on the posts under the Government, National Rural Health Mission and Medicare Relief Society on the basis of length of service, subject to minimum experience of one year and maximum up to three years. Initially, the post of P.H.C. Asha Supervisor was not mentioned in the Schedule-II of the Rules of 1965, however, later on, vide Notification dated 28.06.2013, the post of P.H.C. Asha Supervisor was also appended to the Schedule-II of Rules of the 1965. The petitioner is claiming that the post of TBHV should also be included in the Schedule-II of the Rules of 1965 because while working as TBHV, he is discharging the duties similar to the P.H.C. Asha Supervisor. We may observe that validity or otherwise of the provision for bonus marks is not in issue in the present case. 6. We are of the opinion that awarding of bonus marks for the purpose of recruitment is itself a matter of concession and cannot be considered to be a matter of right. As to how, and in what manner, the concession is, if at all, to be given, remains within the domain of the employer concerned. 7. The consideration herein is limited to the extent as to whether the petitioner, who was appointed through placement agency and is working on contract basis as TBHV can claim parity with the persons working as P.H.C. Asha Supervisor under the Government, National Rural Health Mission and Medicare Relief Society. 8. In the writ petition, though the petitioner has tried to demonstrate that the duties of the P.H.C. Asha Supervisor and the TBHV are similar in nature but after perusing the Chart of duties of the P.H.C.Asha Supervisor and TBHV, we do not find similarity in the duties of the above mentioned two posts. 9. 8. In the writ petition, though the petitioner has tried to demonstrate that the duties of the P.H.C. Asha Supervisor and the TBHV are similar in nature but after perusing the Chart of duties of the P.H.C.Asha Supervisor and TBHV, we do not find similarity in the duties of the above mentioned two posts. 9. Apart from that, it is within the domain and the jurisdiction of the employer concerned that persons working under which post of the Government or National Rural Health Mission or Medicare Relief Society are eligible for recruitment on a particular post and the persons like the petitioner, who are allegedly rendering services on contract basis through a placement agency, cannot claim parity with the persons working under the Government, National Rural Health Mission and Medicare Relief Society. The petitioner having failed to show any illegality or unconstitutionality in the provisions impugned or any illegality in the decision taken by the Government, no case for entertaining this writ petition is made out. 10. Resultantly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. Stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******