Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 507 (RAJ)

Trapti Pandey v. State of Rajasthan

2020-03-23

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, SANGEET LODHA

body2020
JUDGMENT Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - All these intra court appeals have been filed against the judgement dated 29.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the writ petitions preferred by the appellants herein seeking benefit of bonus marks on the basis of their experience gained under National Rural Health Mission Scheme (for short-the NRHM) in States other than State of Rajasthan, have been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief, as emerge from perusal of the record are that the respondent-State of Rajasthan vide advertisement dated 30.05.2018, invited applications for appointment on the post of Nurse Gr.II under Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (for short-the Rules of 1965). Contending that the appellants possessed the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Nurse Gr.II; but, were excluded from the final merit list inasmuch as they were not extended the benefit of bonus marks awardable on the basis of length of experience by working under NRHM besides other schemes as contemplated under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 on the premise that they have gained the experience under the scheme in States other than State of Rajasthan whereas the benefit was confined by the respondents to the candidates having gained experience under the scheme working in the State of Rajasthan only, the writ petitions were filed. The appellants contended that since the NRHM scheme is a Central Government scheme, the respondents acted in violation of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by confining the benefit of experience to the candidates working under this scheme in the State of Rajasthan only. The appellants contended that since the NRHM scheme is a Central Government scheme, the respondents acted in violation of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by confining the benefit of experience to the candidates working under this scheme in the State of Rajasthan only. The appellants relied upon the order dated 18.11.2013 passed by single bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16545/2013, Mahesh Kumar Yadav v. The State of Rajasthan , the order dated 9.2.2016 passed by the division bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12942/2015, Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan , the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the single bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13230/2018, Ashok Kumar Saini v. State of Rajasthan , which has been upheld by the division bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.42/2019, Shiv Kumar Meena v. State of Rajasthan and other connected appeals vide order dated 28.02.2019 to impress upon this Court that the issue as to the award of bonus marks to a candidate on account of experience of working under NRHM anywhere in India is no more res integra as it has been held by this Court in the aforesaid cases that no discrimination can be made by the respondents on this count. 3. The learned Single Judge has, vide its impugned judgement dated 29.8.2019, dismissed the writ petitions. Hence these appeals. 4. Assailing the impugned judgement passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsels appearing for the appellants submitted that the same is not sustainable in the light of the judgements of the division benches of this Court in the cases of Jagdish Prasad (supra) and Shiv Kumar Meena (supra). It was contended that since the NRHM is a Central Government Scheme implemented by various State Governments, the persons working under this Scheme could not have been discriminated upon for award of bonus marks on account of place of work and such discrimination is hit by the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgement as well as action of the respondents in subjecting the appellants to hostile discrimination may be quashed and the appeals be allowed. 5. They, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgement as well as action of the respondents in subjecting the appellants to hostile discrimination may be quashed and the appeals be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the respondent-State was well within its competence to confine the benefit of bonus marks only to the employees working in the State of Rajasthan even under the NRHM scheme inasmuch as such candidates are acquainted with the health care issues of the people of Rajasthan and in particular medical care which is required as per the demographic condition of the State of Rajasthan. He submitted that the respondent-State, as a matter of policy, has taken a conscious decision to extend the benefit of weightage of bonus marks to the employees working in the State of Rajasthan only and, the appellants, cannot claim this benefit as a matter of right. He relies upon the judgements of the coordinate benches of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.673/2019 [ State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram ] & connected appeals; D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13131/2018 [ Ratan Singh v. State of Rajasthan ] and other connected petitions decided vide order dated 05.08.2019; and D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.837/2019 [ State of Rajasthan v. Satya Dev Bhagaur ] decided on 13.08.2019. He, therefore, prayed that the appeals be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record as well as judgements cited by the respective counsels. 7. A Full Bench judgement of this Court dated 30.11.2015 in Rajkumar v. State of Rajasthan , S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6207/2009 and other connected writ petitions, on reference, held, after forensically examining the scheme of NRHM, as under: 'As already discussed, the object of the NRHM is to provide accessible, affordable and accountable quality health service to the poorest households in the remotest rural regions. To achieve this object the thrust of the mission is on establishing a fully functional community owned, decentralised health delivery system with intersectoral conversance at all levels to ensure simultaneous action on a wide range of detriments of health like water, sanitation, education, nutrition, social and general quality. The scheme is having multi tasks and for that purpose local teams headed by health and sanitation committee at panchayat level are to be formed. The scheme is having multi tasks and for that purpose local teams headed by health and sanitation committee at panchayat level are to be formed. The scheme in so many words emphasise aid and assistance of local residents in its implementation and further to have their service as experts and resource persons. The scheme demands uninterrupted availability of the staff responsible to execute different programmes. It also requires setting up of planning teams and committees by local residents on habitation/village, gram panchayat, primary health centre and cluster level basis. Further pertinent to notice that the engagement of the staff in NRHM from locals is neither a concession nor a reservation, but a tactics for effective implementation of the scheme. The locals are certainly in better position to identify the specific health issues of the area concern with more effective persuasive value to bring the habitants of area within the fold of NRHM. The needs noticed indicate that engagement of paramedical staff by examining merit at district level is in accordance with the frame and purport of the National Rural Health Mission. It is a just and reasonable classification with intelligible differentia to achieve the objects enshrined. Accordingly, the first question referred to us is answered by holding that engagement of paramedical staff with preparation of merit at District level does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The second question is that whether while engaging paramedical staff in National Rural Health Mission, any reference to the place of residence and/or local criteria is permissible in law or not? We are of the view that in light of the complete scheme of NRHM as discussed, the assistance and support of the locals in its implementation is essential and, therefore, for the purpose of engagement of staff, if preference is given on basis of the place of residence and/or local criteria among the equals, then that is not irrational or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The engagement of staff under National Rural Health Mission at district level and by providing preference to the locals, equals have not been treated differently without any justifiable reasons. As such, there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The second question referred is also answered accordingly.' 8. The engagement of staff under National Rural Health Mission at district level and by providing preference to the locals, equals have not been treated differently without any justifiable reasons. As such, there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The second question referred is also answered accordingly.' 8. Although, the question, the Full Bench was answering, was slightly different from the controversy herein; but, it was categorically held by the Full Bench of this Court that in order to advance the object of NRHM, the State Government is well within its right if preference is given to the engagement of people on the basis of residence and/or local criteria and in such circumstances, it cannot be said equals have not been treated differently without justifiable reasons and it would lead to no violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the light of aforesaid dictum, we find no fault with the policy of the State Government whereby, it has decided to extend the benefit of bonus marks to the candidates working in the State of Rajasthan alone even under the Centralised Scheme such as NRHM. We are in complete agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the candidates, who have gained experience by working in various schemes in the State of Rajasthan as defined under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965, form a well defined separate class and confining the weightage of the bonus marks to such class, is based on intelligible differentia having reasonable nexus with the object of rendering the medical facilities to the people of Rajasthan especially in the rural areas as such candidates would be better acquainted with the health care issues of the people of Rajasthan as per its demographic condition. 10. Insofar as the judgements of the coordinate benches of this Court in Jagdish Prasad (supra) and Shiv Kumar Meena (supra) are concerned, the dispute involved therein was totally different. 10. Insofar as the judgements of the coordinate benches of this Court in Jagdish Prasad (supra) and Shiv Kumar Meena (supra) are concerned, the dispute involved therein was totally different. In Jagdish Prasad , petitioners challenged the validity of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 which confined benefit of bonus marks to the persons working with the Government, NRHM and Medi Care Relief Society only; but, not to the other persons like the petitioners who were discharging similar work with other institutions including the government hospitals of other States and the coordinate bench did not find any illegality in the action of the State Government confining the benefit to a class of persons enumerated under Rule 19. Similarly, in Shiv Kumar Meena (supra), the writ petitions filed by the appellants therein seeking benefit of bonus marks for working on the post of Ambulance Paramedics under the NRHM Scheme with Centralised Accident & Trauma Services, an autonomous body of the Government of NCT of Delhi, were dismissed. The division bench of this Court in the aforesaid case concurred with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the working of Ambulance Paramedics cannot be treated to be equivalent to the working of Nurse Gr.II and resultantly, the appeals were dismissed. Therefore, the aforesaid judgements of the coordinate benches of this Court are of no help to the appellants. However, we find that a division bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Satya Devi Bhagaur (supra) held as under: '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 & 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 v. State of Rajasthan , [D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.24245/2018, decided on 29.102018]. 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.' 11. We are in agreement with the view already taken by a division bench of this Court in the aforesaid case. We find no illegality or perversity in the judgement impugned herein warranting interference in the intra court appeals. Resultantly, the special appeals are dismissed being devoid of merit. 12. Office to place a copy of this judgement in each connected matter.