Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2332 (RAJ)

Praveen Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-29

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. 1. The instant batch of writ petitions involves common issue and as such, all the writ petitions are decided by the common order, as per the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The seminal question for consideration before the court is in respect of award of bonus marks for appointment on the post of Nurse Grade-II to the candidates working under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) in other States outside the State of Rajasthan. 3. The facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11379/2019 are taken as a lead case to decide the present controversy. The petitioner Praveen Kumar has pleaded in his writ petition that he had applied for the post of Nurse Grade-II in pursuance of the advertisement dated 30.05.2018 inviting applications from the eligible candidates. The petitioner has pleaded that he possesses the requisite qualification of Senior Secondary and diploma in GNM and he is duly registered with the Rajasthan Nursing Council, which makes him entitled for appointment on the post of Nurse Grade-II. The petitioner has pleaded that selection on the post of Nurse Grade-II is to be made on the basis of the marks obtained in qualifying academic examination or professional examination or both, as specified in the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Rules of 1965") and such bonus marks, as may be specified by the State Government having regard to length of experience on similar work under the Government, National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and Medicare Relief Society. 4. The petitioner has pleaded that for award of bonus marks towards length of experience, an amendment was made by the State Government under the Rules of 1965 vide amendment Notification dated 06.02.2013, according to which, the candidates who are working under the Government, NRHM and Medicare Relief Society are entitled for award of bonus marks. 5. The petitioner has pleaded that he was having an experience of one year, eight months and one day, of working on the post of Staff Nurse (which is equivalent to the post of Nurse Grade-II) in NRHM scheme in the District Narnaul, State of Haryana. 5. The petitioner has pleaded that he was having an experience of one year, eight months and one day, of working on the post of Staff Nurse (which is equivalent to the post of Nurse Grade-II) in NRHM scheme in the District Narnaul, State of Haryana. The petitioner has pleaded that the experience certificate was issued to him by the competent authority of NRHM of the State of Haryana and as such, two years experience of working in a nationalized scheme, was included in Rule 19 for award of bonus marks. 6. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent-employer published a list dated 17.06.2019 whereby they called the candidates for documents verification and the said list did not include the name of the petitioner despite having the experience of working of more than one year on the post of Staff Nurse in NRHM Scheme in the State of Haryana. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent-employer has committed discrimination in award of bonus marks between the candidates working in the NRHM Scheme in the State of Rajasthan and in the States, other than State of Rajasthan. The petitioner has pleaded that after publication of the list excluding the name of the petitioner, he submitted objections/representation before the respondents, since no heed has been paid, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition. 7. The petitioner has pleaded that the amendment Notification dated 06.02.2013, nowhere mentioned that benefit of experience was to be given to only those candidates who are working in the NRHM Scheme in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner has also referred to an order dated 18.11.2013 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16545/2013, Mahesh Kumar Yadav and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another and connected writ petitions, whereby this court has declared that the persons who are working in the NRHM Scheme irrespective of the State, will be eligible for award of bonus marks, as per Rule 19 of the Rules, 1965. 8. 8. The petitioner has also made reference of order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12942/2015, Jagdish Prasad and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, whereby the Division Bench has made observation that the persons working under the NRHM Scheme, are working in a nationwide scheme and such persons will be entitled to have weightage, irrespective of the place of their working. 9. The petitioner while formulating prayer in the writ petition has sought a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents-State to consider the experience of the petitioner which he gained in NRHM Scheme in the State of Haryana for the purpose of grant of bonus marks and further direction has been sought to allow the petition in terms of the order dated 18.11.2013 passed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16545/2013, Mahesh Kumar Yadav and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. 10. The respondents-State has filed reply to the writ petition. The respondents have denied that experience of the petitioner as having worked under the NRHM Scheme in the State of Haryana and same experience cannot be considered for granting bonus marks. The respondents have taken a plea that though the NRHM/NHM Scheme was launched by the Government of India, however, the same is managed individually at the State Level by different State Governments and every State has its own demographic conditions and requirements for improving health care needs and vulnerable diseases of its people. It is emphasized that the Government of Rajasthan is conducting various programmes for its employees working under the NRHM Scheme and therefore, the persons working in the State of Rajasthan, have complete knowledge of the need and requirements of health sector in the State of Rajasthan and they are entitled for preference in service in the form of weightage/bonus marks. 11. The respondents have pleaded that benefit extended on the basis of experience is only a little weightage on the basis of work experience in Rajasthan and not the eligibility and a person having qualification eligibility is entitled to face the process of recruitment, irrespective of having any experience or not. 11. The respondents have pleaded that benefit extended on the basis of experience is only a little weightage on the basis of work experience in Rajasthan and not the eligibility and a person having qualification eligibility is entitled to face the process of recruitment, irrespective of having any experience or not. The respondents emphasized that experience gained in other States cannot be compared with the working in the State of Rajasthan, as every State is having its own health problems and issues and the persons trained to meet such circumstances, stand on different pedestal. 12. The respondents also pleaded that fixing up criteria of recruitment, is domain of the State Government and if the State Government has decided to extend benefit of bonus marks to the candidates who have worked in the State of Rajasthan under NRHM/NHM Scheme, such classification is permissible under the law, based on intelligible differentia, having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 13. Counsel for the petitioners have raised following legal submissions for consideration of this Court:- (a) The issue with regard to award of bonus marks to the candidates having experience from outside the State of Rajasthan, for appointment on the post of Nurse Grade-II is already decided by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16545/2013, Mahesh Kumar Yadav and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another (supra) and such the issue is no more res-integra. (b) The respondent-employer cannot be permitted to discriminate in award of bonus marks between the candidates only on account of acquiring the experience of working in the NRHM Scheme in the State of Rajasthan and in the States, other than State of Rajasthan and such discriminatory treatment is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (c) The centralized scheme of NRHM, implemented by various State Governments, does not make any distinction for acquiring experience and nature of job/work having similarities, the distinction drawn by the respondents, is artificial and without any basis. (d) The rule making authority, while amending the Rules of 1965 vide amendment Notification dated 06.02.2013, does not prescribe any limitation/restriction for working in the State of Rajasthan only in NRHM/NHM Scheme and according to the amended Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965, the authorities are duty bound to confer the benefit of bonus marks to the candidates irrespective of their place of working. 14. 14. Counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16545/2013, Mahesh Kumar Yadav and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, the order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12942/2015, Jagdish Prasad and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13230/2018, Ashok Kumar Saini and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, which has been upheld by the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 42/2019, Shiv Kumar Meena and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others and connected appeals vide order dated 28.02.2019. 15. Counsel for the respondents-State submitted that the respondent-employer is fully entitled to grant benefit of bonus marks to the employees who are working in the State of Rajasthan and the candidates who have gained experience from outside the State of Rajasthan, cannot be conferred such benefit. Counsel argued that the State of Rajasthan, as a matter of policy, has decided that the candidates who have worked in the State of Rajasthan, deserve weightage/bonus marks, since such candidates are acquainted with the health care issues of the people of Rajasthan and particular medical care which is required, as per demographic conditions of the State of Rajasthan, and such conditions can be better understood by the persons who have worked in the State of Rajasthan and various programmes are also implemented by the State of Rajasthan considering the problems faced, by the persons who are living in the State of Rajasthan. 16. Counsel for the respondents has argued that extending the benefit of weightage of bonus marks cannot be claimed by the candidates as a matter of right and it is for the respondent-employer to give preference to the employees working in its establishment in a programme evolved by the State of Rajasthan. 16. Counsel for the respondents has argued that extending the benefit of weightage of bonus marks cannot be claimed by the candidates as a matter of right and it is for the respondent-employer to give preference to the employees working in its establishment in a programme evolved by the State of Rajasthan. Counsel also argued that order of the coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16545/2013, Mahesh Kumar Yadav and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, is no more a good law in view of the subsequent pronouncements made by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur and placed reliance on the judgment dated 30.07.2019 passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 673/2019, State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Daulat Ram and Others and connected appeals, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13131/2018, Ratan Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others and other connected petitions decided vide order dated 05.08.2019 and D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 837/2019, State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Satya Dev Bhagaur and Others decided on 13.08.2019. Counsel further placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Full Bench in the case of Rajkumar and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 2016 Raj. 176 (FB). 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 18. Counsel further placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Full Bench in the case of Rajkumar and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 2016 Raj. 176 (FB). 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 18. This court, before proceeding further in the matter, would like to quote the clauses of advertisement dated 30.05.2018:- ^^7- vuqHko ds vk/kkj ij cksul vad %& jktLFkku fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; v/khuLFk lsok fu;e 1965 ;Fkk la'kksf/kr fu;eksa ds fu;e 19 esa mYysf[kr Áko/kkuksa ds rgr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks cksul vad ns; gSA ¼1½ vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ik=rk dh tkap ,oa nLrkostks ds lR;kiu ds le; vkosnd dks eq[;ea=h chŒihŒ,yŒ thou j{kkdks"k] ,uŒvkjŒ,pŒ,eŒ esfMds;j fjyhQ lkslk;Vh] ,Ml dUVªksy lkslk;Vh] jk"Vªh; {k; fu;a=.k dk;ZØe] >kykokM vLirky ,oa fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; lkslk;Vh] lesfdr jksx fuxjkuh ifj;kstuk] jkT; LokLF; ifjokj dY;k.k laLFkku ¼,lŒvkbZŒ,pŒ,QŒMCY;wŒ½ ,oa jkT; ljdkj ds v/khu leku dk;Z djus dk foHkkx ds vf/kd`r Áf/kdkjh }kjk fu/kkZfjr Ák:i esa tkjh vuqHko Áek.k i= ÁLrqr djuk gksxkA ;g vuqHko Áek.k i= foKkfir in ds fy;s vkWuykbZu vkosnu djus dh vafdr frfFk ls iwoZ dk tkjh fd;k gqvk gksuk vko';d gSA vuqHko Áek.k i= dk Ák:i ^^v** layXu gSA foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr Ák:i ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh Ák:i esa tkjh fd;k x;k vuqHko Áek.k i= ekU; ugha gksXkkA ¼2½ jktLFkku ljdkj ds v/khu Á/kkukpk;Z ,oa fu;a=d jktdh; esfMdy dkyst Á/kkukpk;Z >kykokM gkfLiVy ,.M esfMdy dkyst lkslk;Vh jktdh; MsUVy dkyst funs'kd] tu LokLF;@ vkjŒlhŒ,pŒ@eksckbZy lftZdy ;wfuV@vkbZŒbZŒlhŒ@,Ml v/kh{kd fpfdRlky; lewg] ifj;kstuk funs'kd] ,uŒ,pŒ,eŒ@,Ml funs'kd vkjŒvkjŒlhŒ funs'kd] ¼,lŒvkbZŒ,pŒ,QŒMCY;wŒ½ jkT; {k; jksx fu;a=.k vf/kdkjh] jkT; ds leLr eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh] leLr Áeq[k fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh] leLr ftyk Átuu ,oa f'k'kq LokLF; vf/kdkjh] eq[; lkoZtfud fo'ys"kd] mi&funs'kd vkS"kf/k ijh{k.k Á;ksx'kkyk dks muds v/khu lafonk@O;fDrxr vuqca/k@vLFkkbZ vk/kkj ij dk;Z djus ij vuqHko Áek.k i= tkjh djus gsrq vf/kd`r Ákf/kdkjh ekuk tkosxkA ¼3½ vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa vuqHko ds laca/k esa fu/kkZfjr dkye esa vko';d Áfof"B;ka dh tkuh vko';d gSA ;fn vkWuykbZu vkosnu esa vuqHko ds dkye esa vko';d Áfof"B;ka ugha dh xbZ gS] rks ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vuqHko dk ykHk ugha fn;k tk;sxkA ftlds fy;s vH;FkhZ Lo;a mRrjnk;h gksxkA ¼4½ vH;FkhZ }kjk ÁLrqr vuqHko Áek.k i= dks foHkkx }kjk tkjhdrkZ vf/kd`r Áf/kdkjh ls lR;kiu djk;s tkus ds i'pkr~ gh cksul vad@vk;q esa f'kfFkyrk dk ykHk fu;ekuqlkj fn;k tkosxk ,oa foHkkx }kjk pkgs tkus ij ewy vuqHko Áek.k i= ÁLrqr fd;k tkuk vfuok;Z gksxkA ¼5½ vuqHko Áek.k i= vkWuykbZu vkosnu ds lkFk viyksM djuk vfuok;Z gS vU;Fkk vuqHko dk ykHk ns; ugha gksxk ,oa ckn esa vkWQykbu dksbZ vuqHko Áek.k i= Lohdkj ugha fd;k tkosxkA** 19. It would be relevant to quote the amendment of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 made vide Notification dated 06.02.2013, which reads as follows:- "GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL (A-GR.II) No. F.2 (1) DOP/A-II/82 Dated: 6.2.2013 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Rajasthan hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules 1965, namely:- 1. to 3............ 4. Amendment of rules 19 - The existing provisions to rule 19 of the said rules, shall be substituted by following new provisos, namely:- "Provided that in case of appointment to the post of Pharmacist, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of marks obtained in qualifying as specified in the schedule appended to these rules and such bonus marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience on similar work under the Government, Chief Minister BPL, Jeevan Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission, Medi Care Relief Society, AIDS Control Society, Institutes under Cooperative Department or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar. Provided that in case of appointment to the posts other than Pharmacist, which are not in the purview of the Commission, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of marks obtained in such qualifying academic examination or professional examination or both as specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience on similar work under the Government, National Rural Health Mission and Medi Care Relief Society. Provided further that the decision of the Commission or Appointing Authority, as the case may be, as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate, shall be final." 20. It would be further relevant to quote the amendment of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 made vide Notification dated 30.08.2013, which reads as follows:- "GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL (A-GR.II) No. F.2 (1) DOP/A-II/82 Dated: 30.8.2013 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Rajasthan hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, namely:- 1. and 2........ 3. and 2........ 3. Amendment of rule 19 - In rule 19 of the said rules:- (i) in first proviso for the existing expression "or Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar" the expression "Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar, Revised National Tuberculosis Control Program (RNTCP), Jhalawar Hospital and Medical College Society, Integrated Disease Surveillance Project or State Institute for Health and Family Welfare" shall be substituted. (ii) in second proviso, for the existing expression "and Medi Care Relief Society" the expression "Medi Care Relief Society, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh, AIDS Control Society, Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme (RNTCP), Jhalawar Hospital and Medical College Society, Integrated Disease Surveillance Project or State Institute for Health and Family Welfare" shall be substituted." 21. This court finds that the respondent-State by notification dated 06.02.2013 while making amendment in Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 has provided that for appointment on the post of Pharmacist and posts other than Pharmacist, merit will be prepared by the appointing authority on the basis of the marks obtained in qualifying examination or professional examination or both, as specified in the schedule appended to the Rules and such bonus marks, as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience on similar work under the Government, National Rural Health Mission and Medicare Relief Society. (Emphasis supplied) 22. The said amendment conferred power on the Appointing Authority to award bonus marks having regard to the length of service of the candidates, who are working under the Government, National Rural Health Mission and Medicare Relief Society. The purpose of the State Government was to give weightage to the candidates who are working in the State of Rajasthan. 23. The State Government further amended Rules of 1965 vide Notification dated 30.08.2013, whereby further amendment of Rule 19 was made and after Medicare Relief Society, other expressions were added, where different programmes were carried out by the State Government for medical care of people in different schemes in the State of Rajasthan. The purpose of the State Government was to enhance the scope of working in different schemes in the State of Rajasthan as various programmes are being run to take medical care to the people of State of Rajasthan. The purpose of the State Government was to enhance the scope of working in different schemes in the State of Rajasthan as various programmes are being run to take medical care to the people of State of Rajasthan. The working of employees/candidates in different programmes was taken into consideration and accordingly Appointing Authority found that experience gained by the persons in other defined establishments/schemes, the benefit was to be conferred to such candidates. 24. This court finds that the State Government, as a matter of Policy, if has decided to confer weightage of grant of bonus marks, no fault can be found, if the same is conferred in respect of the candidates working in the State of Rajasthan alone. This court finds that the candidates, who have gained experience of similar work in the State of Rajasthan in various schemes, as defined under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965, form a separate class and the object of the State Government is to consider their working/experience for the people of Rajasthan. The State-employer if has restricted the benefit of bonus marks to a well-defined class of persons, working in the State of Rajasthan, the same cannot be termed as discriminatory or arbitrary. The object of the State Government is to confer certain benefit to a class of persons who have worked only in the State of Rajasthan. Working in NRHM/NHM in other parts of the country, do not fulfill the object of the State Government to render medical facilities to the people, who are residing in the State of Rajasthan. 25. This court finds that the State-employer is within its domain to fix the criteria for recruitment and if there is a reasonable classification, the same cannot be hit by the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The said classification is based on intelligible differentia and have a rational nexus with the object of rendering service in the State of Rajasthan, as such, the object is sought to be achieved, by giving bonus marks to the employees who are working in the State of Rajasthan. 26. This court finds that reliance placed on the judgment dated 18.11.2013 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Yadav and Others (supra) is not a binding precedent in view of the subsequent judgments rendered by the Division Bench of this court. 27. 26. This court finds that reliance placed on the judgment dated 18.11.2013 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Yadav and Others (supra) is not a binding precedent in view of the subsequent judgments rendered by the Division Bench of this court. 27. This court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Daulat Ram and Others, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 673/2019 (supra) had occasion to consider the claim of bonus marks on the post of Nurse Grade-II in respect of experience of working of employees in four categories of institutions. The advertisement/recruitment process only prescribed the benefit of bonus marks to four categories i.e. (a) those who worked with the State of Rajasthan under National Rural Health Mission; (b) employees who worked under the Chief Minister BPL Scheme; (c) individuals appointed under the State Jeevan Raksha Kosh and (d) those who worked with the State of Rajasthan in its departments, with similar experience. The candidates approached the Single Bench of this Court contending arbitrariness on the part of the State because the candidates had not worked in any of the four listed categories of institutions. The candidates working in the institutions such as University, NGOs and Ayurvedic Hospitals, etc. filed the writ petitions and the Single Bench allowed the writ petitions. The matter was decided by the Division Bench in appeal filed by the State and the Division Bench held that if the State-employer insisted that only four specified class of institutions or programme where the individual had worked would be considered eligible for award of bonus marks, no fault can be found with such policy of the State and award of bonus marks is a benefit which cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The order passed by the Division Bench is quoted hereunder:- "9. It is quite evident from the above discussion that Gaurav Kumar dealt with the precise issue. The import of the Division Bench judgment is clear that the award of bonus marks is a benefit and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The State can then fashion its Rules and policies to grant such benefits to specified or particular individuals having regard to the needs of its departments. The import of the Division Bench judgment is clear that the award of bonus marks is a benefit and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The State can then fashion its Rules and policies to grant such benefits to specified or particular individuals having regard to the needs of its departments. In such circumstances given the imperative of Rule 19, the Court does not discern any arbitrariness, if the State insists that only four specified categories of institutions or programme where the individual had worked would be considered eligible for bonus marks; irrespective of manner of their recruitment or appointment. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 10. The argument on behalf of the writ petitioners that the employees of the State Universities and other such bodies which are aided by the State should also be included and that their experience should be granted bonus marks, in the opinion of this Court is unpersuasive. If one accepts the position in law that grant of bonus marks is a benefit, it also follows that the State is entitled to choose whom to accord the benefit. There cannot be a complaint of arbitrariness unless there is something manifestly unreasonable about the fashioning of such policies. The objective with which the State has framed its policy and confined grant of bonus marks for experience in four categories of the institutions is that each of them were carrying out State policies. It chose to grant bonus marks working in those institutions and not others, cannot in the opinion of the Court result in a complaint of discrimination or arbitrariness. 11. For the above reasons, this Court holds that the impugned judgments are in error and are accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed accordingly. All pending applications are disposed." 28. This court finds that the Division Bench in the case of Ratan Singh and Others (supra) considered the validity of proviso to Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2018 challenged on the ground that employees working and discharging similar functions in Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar and Drugs Distribution Centers since were working only for the State and carrying out its policies and such benefit should be granted to them. The Division Bench also considered the claim of the petitioners who were working for the Central Government and as such also decided the writ petition Nos. 13690, 13750 and 13902 of 2018 and the Division Bench specifically held that it is open for the State not to grant bonus marks to those working for the Central Government. The operative portion of the order is reproduced as under:- "It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the decision in Daulat Ram (supra) ought not to be construed as binding because in the present case, all employees working and discharging similar functions, employed by Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar and Drugs Distribution Centers were primarily and essentially working only for the State and carrying out its policies. This Court is of the opinion that the argument has no merit. In Daulat Ram - as indeed in Gaurav Kumar Sen, this Court highlighted that the grant of bonus marks is a benefit which cannot be claimed as a matter of right. If the State chooses to prioritize employees working in its establishment or directly in relation to a programme evolved by it and it chooses not to grant such benefit to others, this is neither discriminatory nor arbitrary. Therefore, the challenge to the amended rule cannot be accepted. Civil Writ Petition No. 13884/2018 The petitioner seeks the benefit of age relaxation under Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2013. The State is directed to examine it and grant the benefit, if permissible. Civil Writ Petition No. 13690/2018, 13750/2018 and 13902/2018 In these petitions, the petitioners worked for the Central Government and claim the same benefit as is granted to those working for the State of Rajasthan. Having regard to the view expressed i.e. four categories of employees working for the State Government or in its specified programmes, are entitled to the benefit of bonus marks, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the argument urged. It is open to the State not to grant bonus marks to those working for the Central Government as well. All the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed save and except the directions granted in Civil Writ Petition No. 13884/2018." 29. It is open to the State not to grant bonus marks to those working for the Central Government as well. All the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed save and except the directions granted in Civil Writ Petition No. 13884/2018." 29. The Division Bench again considered the issue with regard to counting of experience gained by the candidates in NRHM outside the State of Rajasthan i.e. in the Centralized Scheme run by autonomous body of Government of NCT of Delhi in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Satya Dev Bhagaur and Others, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 837/2019, decided vide order dated 13.08.2019 and the Division Bench, in view of the order passed in the case of Ratan Singh (supra), dismissed the claim of the candidates to grant the benefit of bonus marks. The Division Bench further clarified that if the intention of the State is to confine the benefit of award of bonus marks to those employed in the enumerated schemes within the State of Rajasthan, no illegality can be found to the State's decision. The relevant portion of the order is quoted hereunder:- "The State argues that the recent judgment in Ratan Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13131/2018, decided on 05.08.2019, covers the issue inasmuch as it was held that grant of benefit of bonus marks cannot be claimed as a matter of right. This Court is of the opinion that the observation made in Krishan Kumar Saini's Case (supra) cannot be treated as binding precedent that the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2018 specifically confined the grant of bonus marks, to enumerated categories of employees, who had gained experience while working in various institutions in Rajasthan or for the State of Rajasthan, in the concerned schemes. This view is also in accord with the previous Division Bench judgment in Gaurav Kumar Sen and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24245/2018, decided on 29.10.2018. Besides, this Court notices that the rules were amended, having regard to the interpretation given by other Division Bench, after the introduction of the award of bonus marks scheme by the Rules of 2013. Besides, this Court notices that the rules were amended, having regard to the interpretation given by other Division Bench, after the introduction of the award of bonus marks scheme by the Rules of 2013. In these circumstance, the intention of the State was to confine the benefit of award of bonus marks to those employed in the enumerated schemes within the State of Rajasthan and not others. The appeal is accordingly allowed; the impugned order is hereby set aside. All pending applications are disposed of." 30. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that issue in respect of award of bonus marks to the candidates having experience from other States other than the State of Rajasthan has been considered in the case of Ashok Kumar Saini and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13230/2018 decided on 26.11.2018 and further upheld by the Division Bench in the case of Shiv Kumar Meena and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 42/2019, vide order dated 28.02.2019, this court finds that the Single Bench of this court decided the writ petition in view of the judgment passed by this court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Yadav and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another (supra) and judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Jagdish Prasad and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra). The Single Bench declined to grant relief to the petitioner as the experience gained by the candidate as Ambulance Paramedic was not valid or relating to the similar work vis-a-vis the work of Nurse Grade-II. The view of the Single Bench was upheld by the Division Bench in the case of Shiv Kumar Meena and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra). 31. This court finds that the view expressed in the case of Ashok Kumar Saini (supra) cannot be a binding precedent in view of the subsequent pronouncements made by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Daulat Ram and Others (supra), Ratan Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra) and State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Satya Dev Bhagaur and Others (supra). 32. 32. As far as reliance placed by counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of Division Bench passed in the case of Jagdish Prasad and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra) is concerned, this court finds that the issue before the Division Bench was with regard to non-grant of bonus marks to the persons who were not working with the Government of Rajasthan, National Rural Health Mission and Medi Care Relief Society. The grievance raised by the petitioners was that experience gained in Government Hospital, National Rural Health Mission or Medi Care Relief Society, could not be treated at any higher pedestal than the persons having similar work experience with other institutions including the Government Hospitals of other States. The Division Bench after analyzing the scheme of Rules and the purpose of grant of bonus marks, came to the conclusion that experience gained in other States cannot be compared with the working in the State of Rajasthan as every State is having its own problems and issues and the persons trained to meet such circumstances, were standing on different pedestal. The Division Bench did not find any illegality in the provisions relating to the grant of bonus marks and as such, the petition was dismissed. This Court finds that the judgment passed in the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra) does not come to any assistance to the case of the present petitioners. 33. This court finds that the petitioners do not have right to claim the benefit of award of bonus marks and the State Government has not committed any illegality in excluding the candidates who have gained experience outside the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of awarding them bonus marks. 34. Consequently, the instant batch of writ petition being devoid of force, stands dismissed. A copy of this order be separately placed in each file.