Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 534 (RAJ)

Bhairu Lal Balai, S/o. Sojee Ram Balai v. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Ayurved and Indian Medicine Department, Government of Rajasthan

2022-02-16

ARUN BHANSALI

body2022
ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to award bonus marks to the petitioner based on the experience certificate dated 23.06.2021 (Annex.5) in relation to recruitment to the post of Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade pursuant to the advertisement No.1/2021 dated 17.06.2021. 2. It is, inter-alia, submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from the experience certificate (Annex.5), it is apparent that the petitioner has worked as Staff Nurse (Male) (contractual) from 01.06.2019 to 03.12.2020 at M.S. Regional Ayurveda Research Institute and as such, the petitioner falls within the parameters laid down in Clause 7 of the advertisement entitled to award of bonus marks. 3. Further submissions have been made that the respondents have granted bonus marks to other similarly situated candidates, who are pharmacists based on the communication dated 15.11.2021 (Annex.12) issued by the State Government and therefore, on that count also, the petitioner, who has worked as Staff Nurse, is entitled for grant of bonus marks and denial thereof is not justified. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents make submissions that the plea raised by the petitioner is baseless, inasmuch as, the petitioner neither falls within the parameters laid down in the Government order dated 15.11.2021 (Annex.12) nor within Clause 7 of the advertisement and as such, the petitioner has not been granted the bonus marks and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. The experience certificate issued to the petitioner by M.S. Regional Ayurveda Research Institute, reads as under :- ^^vuqHko izek.k i= izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jh HkS: yky cykbZ iq= Jh lksth jke cykbZ] tks vkmVlksflZax ,tsalh ds ek/;e ls laLFkku esa LVkWQ ulZ ¼esy½ ¼lafonk½ ds in ij fnukad 01-06-2019 ls 03-12-2020 rd dk;Zjr FksA bl vof/k ds nkSjku mudk dk;Z larks"kizn jgk gSA eSa buds mTToy Hkfo"; dh dkeuk djrk g¡wA lgh@& ¼MkW- ch-vkj- eh.kk½ izHkkjh lgk;d funs'kd** 7. The experience certificate issued to one Dinesh Sepat, which is relied on by the petitioner, reads as under :- ^^dk;kZuqHko ,oa vukifRr izek.k & i= izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jh fnus'k lsiV tks ,uihlhMhlh,l dk;ZØe] HkhyokM+k esa lkeqnkf;d LokLF; dsUnz] iaMsj ij vLFkkbZ ,oa lafonk vk/kkj ij vk;q"k QkekZflLV ¼vk;qosZn½ ds :i esa fnukad 02-12-2015 ls 30-09-2018 ,oa fnukad 3-10-2018 ls v|ru dk;Zjr gSA budh lsokdky vof/k fnukad 31-03-2020 rd gSA ;fn budk p;u vU;= ljdkjh laLFkku@foHkkx esa gksrk gS rks blls laLFkku dks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA lgh@& ¼MkW- ds-ds- flag½ izHkkjh lgk;d funs'kd** 8. The circular dated 15.11.2021 (Annex.12) issued by the State Government, reads as under :- ^^,uihlhMhlh,l vk;q"k ifj;kstuk Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk jk"Vªh; LokLF; fe'ku ds vUrxZr gh jktLFkku jkT; esa eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh] HkhyokM+k ds fu;a=.kk/khu lkeqnkf;d LokLF; dsUnz] izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnzksa ij lapkfyr gS] ds vuqHko izek.k i= eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh] HkhyokM+k }kjk lacaf/kr lafonk QkekZflLVksa dks tkjh fd;s x;s gSA mi;qZDr ifjizs{; esa lanfHkZr izLrkoksa ds Øe esa funsZ'kkuqlkj ys[k gS fd ,uihlhMhlh,l vk;q"k ifj;kstuk esa dk;Zjr lafonk QkekZflLVksa dks twfu;j ulZ@dEikm.Mj HkrhZ esa cksul vad fn;s tkus ds laca/k esa l{ke Lrj ls vuqeksnu izkIr gqvk gSA vr% rnuqlkj vfxze dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr djkosaA** 9. The requisite in Clause 7 of the advertisement, reads as under :- ^^jktLFkku vk;qosZn] ;wukuh] gksE;ksiSfFkd ,oa izkd`frd fpfdRlk v/khuLFk lsok fu;e] 1966 ,oa la'kksf/kr fu;e 2013 o la'kksf/kr fu;e 2021 ds fu;e 19 ds izko/kkuksa ds rgr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks cksul vad ns; gSA 1- bu foKkfir inksa ds fy, jkT; ljdkj] eq[;ea=h chih,y] thou j{kk dks"k] jk"Vªh; LokLF; fe'ku] MkW- loZiYyh jk/kkd`".ku~ jktLFkku vk;qosZn fo'ofo|ky;] tks/kiqj ;k ljdkj }kjk jktLFkku jkT; esa lapkfyr dksbZ vk;q"k ifj;kstuk ds vUrxZr foKkfir in ds leku dk;Z (Similar Work) ij dk;Z djus dh vof/k ds vk/kkj ij vuqHko izkIr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks izR;sd iw.kZ o"kZ ds vuqHko ij 10 izfr'kr cksul vad ,oa vf/kdre 30 izfr'kr cksul vad ns; gksxsA ,d o"kZ ls de vof/k ds fy;s dksbZ cksul vad ns; ugha gksxkA** 10. A perusal of the condition of the advertisement, which is in consonance with Rule 19 of the Rules, reveals that those performing similar work in any Ayush Project being run within the State of Rajasthan by the Government, are entitled to grant of bonus marks. 11. A perusal of the condition of the advertisement, which is in consonance with Rule 19 of the Rules, reveals that those performing similar work in any Ayush Project being run within the State of Rajasthan by the Government, are entitled to grant of bonus marks. 11. A perusal of the certificate issued to Dinesh Sepat indicates that he was working in NPCDCS Programme, Bhilwara at CHC, Pander. However, in the experience certificate of the petitioner dated 23.06.2021, there is no reference regarding the petitioner working under any project being run by the Government. It is not in dispute that NPCDCS Programme is run by the Government and as such, in so far as the plea based on Clause 7 of the advertisement is concerned, the same has no substance. 12. So far as the plea based on grant of bonus marks to Dinesh Sepat is concerned, the Government order dated 15.11.2021 confined the grant of bonus marks to those working under NPCDCS Programme and at CHC/PHC and as per the experience certificate of Dinesh Sepat, he was working under the NPCDCS Programme at CHC, his case falls within the said order, whereas the experience certificate of the petitioner did not indicate any such thing regarding the petitioner having work either under the NPCDCS Programme or at CHC/PHC, in those circumstances, the plea of discrimination, qua Dinesh Sepat, raised also has no substance. 13. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is made out in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.