ORDER : 1. As the subject matter of all the writ petitions is similar, they have all been heard together. For the purpose of convenience, the facts indicated in SBCWP No.7868/2023 are being indicated. 2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved of the order dated 25.04.2023 (Annex.10) providing for award of bonus marks in terms of provisions of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (‘Rules of 1965’) and Condition No. t (1) of the advertisement dated 05.05.2023 (Annex.13) for appointment on the post of Nursing Officer. Further direction has been sought to the respondents to award bonus marks according to orders dated 24.05.2018 (Annex.4) and 15.11.2022 (Annex.5) and in case the petitioners stand in merit, they may be accorded appointment on the post of Nursing Officer. 3. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that the petitioners are having qualification of GNM/B. Sc. Nursing and they are also registered with Rajasthan Nursing Council. They have been issued experience certificates based on the requirement of the Rules of 1965. The procedure for recruitment on the post of Nursing Officer is inter-alia governed by the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965. By notification dated 06.02.2013, Rule 19 was amended providing for grant of the bonus marks as specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience on a similar work under the Government and National Rural Health Mission (‘NRHM’) and Medicare Relief Society (‘MRS’). Further, amendments were made by notification dated 23.05.2022, wherein besides NRHM and MRS, certain other projects/schemes for the purpose of grant of bonus marks were added. 4. The respondents issued order dated 24.05.2018 (Annex.4) providing for procedure for award of the bonus marks, wherein it was, inter-alia, provided that for one full year (365 days) experience 10 bonus marks would be awarded with a maximum of 30 marks for three years’ experience, while preparing the merit list and 70% weightage would be given to the qualification as prescribed under the Rules. 5. On 15.11.2022, order was issued that for preparation of merit list for direct recruitment in Nursing and Para Medical Recruitment, 2022, marks would be awarded in terms of notification dated 24.05.2018 (Annex.4). On the same day orders were issued for issuing experience certificate (Annex.6). 5. On 15.11.2022, order was issued that for preparation of merit list for direct recruitment in Nursing and Para Medical Recruitment, 2022, marks would be awarded in terms of notification dated 24.05.2018 (Annex.4). On the same day orders were issued for issuing experience certificate (Annex.6). The advertisement dated 16.11.2022 (Annex.8) was issued for recruitment on the post of Nursing Officer Non-TSP, Pharmacists Non-TSP and Pharmacists TSP, wherein the criteria for award of bonus marks was indicated in terms of orders dated 24.05.2018 (Annex.4) and 15.11.2022 (Annex.5). 6. However, on 19.04.2023 the advertisement dated 15.12.2022 (Annex.8) was cancelled. Whereafter, a fresh order dated 24.05.2023 (Annex.10) was issued for award of bonus marks under the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965, wherein it was provided that looking to circumstances of COVID-19 and the fact that various employees, who were working under different medical services during COVID-19 period i.e. 22.03.2020 to 13.02.2022, in different categories i.e. contractual/adhoc/urgent temporary basis would be entitled for amended bonus marks as enumerated in the table for the vacancies up to year 2023-24. It was further provided that those appointed earlier to COVID-19 period, and continued to work during COVID-19 period i.e. in between 22.03.2020 to 13.02.2022, whether they continued or not, would be entitled to bonus marks i.e. 15 bonus marks for the period less than two years, for period more than two years and less than three years 20 marks and 30 bonus marks for a period of three or more than three years and all those who have not worked during COVID-19 period, i.e. prior to 21.03.2020 or appointed after 13.02.2022, they would be entitled to award of 10, 20 and 30 bonus marks in terms of the order dated 15.11.2022 (Annex.5). On the same day, directions were issued for issue of experience certificate (Annex.11) and on 05.05.2023, notification for recruitment on the post of Nursing Officer was issued (Annex.13), making reference to award of bonus marks based on the order dated 25.04.2023 (Annex.10). 7. Aggrieved of the order 25.04.2023 (Annex.10) providing for award of additional bonus marks to those who have worked during COVID-19 period, the present writ petitions have been filed. 8. 7. Aggrieved of the order 25.04.2023 (Annex.10) providing for award of additional bonus marks to those who have worked during COVID-19 period, the present writ petitions have been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners made vehement submissions that initially when the advertisement dated 16.11.2022 (Annex.8) was issued, the provisions were made for award of bonus marks in terms of order dated 24.05.2018 (Annex.4) and instructions (Annex.5), which advertisement came to be withdrawn on 19.04.2023 (Annex.9) and now fresh instructions dated 25.04.2023 have been issued putting the employees who have worked during COVID-19 period on contractual/adhoc/urgent temporary basis in an advantageous position, which is not justified. 9. Submissions have been made that the order dated 24.05.2023 is contradictory in nature, wherein a distinction has been made that while the candidates like the petitioners would be entitled to 10, 20 and 30 bonus marks for each completed year (365 days), those who have worked during COVID-19 period, even if they have worked for a small period, which may be less than two years, without indicating any minimum, they would be entitled to 15 bonus marks, which is wholly unjustified and a clear case of discrimination. Further submissions have been made that the order dated 25.04.2023 (Annex.10) has been issued without making any amendment in Rule 19 and by indicating those who have worked during COVID-19 period, as entitled to award of bonus marks and, therefore, in absence of amendment in the Rules, the order dated 25.04.2023 (Annex.10) to the extent or providing award of bonus marks to those who have worked during COVID -19 period, is illegal. The allegations have also been made that the respondents before passing of the order dated 25.04.2023 (Annex.10) have not taken any permission from the Sub Committee of the Ministers as taken while issuing the order dated 24.05.2018 (Annex.4) laying down the criteria for award of bonus marks and, therefore also, the order dated 25.04.2023 is bad. 10. Based on the above grounds, it was submitted that for lack of permission from the Sub Committee, any rationale in providing more marks to the candidates, who have worked during COVID-19 period and as no commitment was made by the State while providing employment during COVID-19, the awarding of bonus marks to them is not justified. 11. Reply to the writ petition has been filed contesting the averments made in the writ petition. 11. Reply to the writ petition has been filed contesting the averments made in the writ petition. Submissions have been made that the order dated 25.04.2023 (Annex.10) is a policy decision of the State Government regarding grant of bonus marks qua which the petitioners cannot have any cause of action, as laid down in Satya Dev Bhagaur & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2022 (5) SCC 314 . Further submissions have been made that this Court in Ritesh Gocher & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18156/2022 decided on 01.02.2023 at Jaipur Bench, has highlighted importance of extending benefit to the candidates, who had helped the State Government in the time of national disaster in the form of COVID-19 and served the public at large. Submissions have been made that the order dated 25.04.2023 (Annex.10) provides for complete mechanism for grant of bonus marks to both the categories i.e. those who could be extended the benefit of COVID-19 period prescribed and those, who would continue to be awarded bonus marks as per the earlier scheme on completion of 1, 2 and 3 years. There is no change in second and third slab of the mechanism for grant of bonus marks, the change has only been made in the first slab with an intention of extending additional benefit so that the persons, who have worked during COVID-19 period, can be placed in a position, where they can compete with those who have 20 and 30 bonus marks to their credit and unless they are provided with said benefit, the purpose, which is sought to be achieved, would be rendered a futile exercise. 12. Further submissions have been made that the plea raised regarding provisions of Rule 19 requiring amendment has no substance, as Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965, inter-alia, deals with award of bonus marks having regard to the length of experience on similar work, inter-alia, under the Government and therefore, those who have worked under the Government for COVID-19, would be entitled for award of bonus marks and, therefore, there is no necessity to include the work of COVID-19 under the said Rules. Submissions were made that the challenge laid on the ground that the order has been passed by the Joint Secretary without undergoing the due procedure as was done while issuing the order dated 24.05.2018 (Annex.4), i.e. approval of the Cabinet of Sub Committee, has no substance, as the action has been duly approved at the competent level, which is reflected from the order impugned. 13. Emphasis was laid that as the decision taken by the State Government is a policy decision, the petitions deserve dismissal. Reliance has been placed on Maharasthra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade : (2019) 6 SCC 362 , Dinesh Kharadi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B.S.A.W. No.44/2023 decided on 01.02.2023. 14. Further, the respondents have produced for perusal of the Court, the Standing Order dated 07.02.2019 providing for Rules of Business relating to Medical and Health Department as well as copies of the note sheet, which led to passing of the order dated 25.04.2023 (Annex.10). Besides the other issues, which have been noticed hereinbefore, the respondents have defended the decision seeking to indicate that those who have stood by the Medical and Health Department in saving the precious lives of the citizens during the pandemic, they are entitled for award of additional benefit and that by way of policy decision, the State has decided to do the same, which has resulted in withdrawal of earlier recruitment notification and issuance of order dated 25.04.2023 (Annex.10), and a fresh advertisement, which does not call for any interference. 15. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, after hearing the parties, at a stage before the preliminary reply was filed by the respondents, crystallized the issues involved as infra: “1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the response of the State Government is necessary on the following points:- (i) Considering that the earlier notification dated 24.05.2018 relating to bonus marks was issued after the decision of the Cabinet sub-committee, whether the Joint Secretary of the Medical & Health Department has the power to amend or substitute the criteria for providing bonus marks? (re: order dated 25.04.2023) (ii) Whether the decision dated 25.04.2023 has been approved by the Hon’ble Minister concerned; Department of Medical & Health, Govt. of Rajasthan. (re: order dated 25.04.2023) (ii) Whether the decision dated 25.04.2023 has been approved by the Hon’ble Minister concerned; Department of Medical & Health, Govt. of Rajasthan. (iii) The rationale behind providing 15 bonus marks to the candidates, who had worked for 1 day-730 days during COVID-19, when no promise was made to them while offering appointment.” 16. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 17. The petitioners, who apparently have not worked during COVID-19 period i.e. between 22.03.2020 to 13.02.2022, are aggrieved of the order dated 25.04.2023 (Annex.10), wherein the respondents have provided for award of additional benefit of bonus marks to those who have worked during COVID-19 period. The relevant part of the order inter-alia reads as infra: ^^dksfoM ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds n`f"Vxr] dksfoM vof/k fnukad 22-3-2020 ls 13-2-2022 ds nkSjku fofHkUu fpfdRldh; lsokvksa esa dk;Zjr jgs dkfeZdksa dks fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr esa dk;Z djus dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq,] dkfeZd foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk 23-05-2022 ds vuq:i le:i dk;Z ds vk/kkj ij fuEufyf[kr Jsf.k;ksa esa vkus okys lafonk@rnFkZ@vko';d vLFkkbZ vk/kkj ij vkj-,e-vkj-,e- @IyslesaV ,tsUlh@,u-th-vks-@ih-ih-ih-@108@,e-,e-;w-@,e-,e-oh- ds ek/;e ls dk;Zjr dkfeZdksa dks o"kZ 2023&24 ¼ekpZ&2024½ rd dh tkus okyh HkfrZ;ksa esa of.kZr rkfydk ds vuqlkj la'kksf/kr cksul vad ns; gksxs %& 1½ ,sls dkfeZd tks fd dksfoM vof/k ls iwoZ ls fu;qDr Fks rFkk ftuds }kjk dksfoM&19 ds nkSjku 22 ekpZ 2020 ls 13 Qjojh 2022 ds nkSjku Hkh lafonk@rnFkZ@vko';d vLFkkbZ vk/kkj ij dk;Z fd;k x;k gS rFkk orZeku esa fujUrj dk;Zjr gS vFkok ugha gS] ,oa 2½ ,sls dkfeZd tks dksfoM&19 ds nkSjku 22 ekpZ 2020 ls 13 Qjojh 2022 ds nkSjku lafonk@rnFkZ@vko';d vLFkkbZ vk/kkj ij fu;qDr gq, gS rFkk orZeku esa fujUrj dk;Zjr gS vFkok ugh a gS dks o"kZ 2023 ls 31 ekpZ 2024 rd dh HkfrZ;ksa gsrq lafonk@rnFkZ@vko';d vLFkkbZ vk/kkj ij dk;Z vof/k cksul vad 1- nks o"kZ ls Decided on : 15 2- nks o”kZ ;k blls vf/kd fdUrq rhu o”kZ ls de 20 3- rhu o”kZ ;k blls vf/kd 30 'ks”k leLr dkfeZd tks dksfoM vof/k ds nkSjku dk;Zjr ugha jgs gS vFkkZr fnukad 21-3-2020 rd gh dk;Zjr jgs gS vFkok fnukad 13-2-2022 ds i'pkr fu;qDr fd;s x;s gS] dks vkns'k Øekad 1138 fnukad 15-11-2022 ds vuqlkj 10] 20 ,oa 30 cksul vad ns; gksaxsA ;g l{ke Lrj ls vuqeksfnr gSA vkKk ls ¼ujsUnz caly½ la;qDr 'kklu lfpo^^ 18. The grievance, essentially arises on account of the provision, whereby it has been provided that those who have worked for less than two years during COVID-19 period, would be entitled to 15 bonus marks. The submission made is that those who have not worked during COVID-19 period, they are required to work for 365 days for getting 10 bonus marks and would get 20 bonus marks for working for two years, whereas if anyone has worked during COVID-19 period for any period may be few weeks/few months, he has been made entitled to 15 bonus marks giving him a march over the petitioners, which is discriminatory. 19. So far as the plea raised that without making amendment in Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965, by including the work done during COVID-19 period, for entitlement of bonus marks, the issuance of order dated 25.04.2023 (Annex.10) is beyond the provisions and, therefore, bad, cannot be countenanced. The provision of awarding bonus marks, inter-alia, reads as infra: “19. Scrutiny of applications.-The Commission or the Appointing Authority, as the case may be, shall scrutinize the applications received by them/it and require as many candidates qualified for appointment under these rules as seem to them/it desirable to appear before them/it for interview: xxx 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 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, 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. 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.” [emphasis supplied] 20. 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.” [emphasis supplied] 20. A perusal of the above provision providing for award of bonus marks clearly reveals that bonus marks are to be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of service on similar work, inter-alia, under the Government, NRHM, MRS, CM-BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh etc. The power of the State insofar as the quantum of bonus marks and the length of experience on similar work is concerned, the same is clearly reflected from the said provision and further till such time that the work is being performed, ‘under the Government’, as to under what status the work has been performed or under which Scheme, the work has been performed or if the same has been period, during pandemic, there is no necessity of specifying the same in the Rule for making the candidates entitled for such award of bonus marks. It is the specific case of the respondents that those who have worked during COVID-19 period ‘under the Government’, would be entitled to award of bonus marks and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard, has no substance. 21. Further submission made about the respondents issuing the order dated 24.04.2023 (Annex.10) without undergoing the requisite procedure, apparently is also misplaced. The said argument, has been raised only based on the procedure adopted at the time of passing of the order dated 24.05.2018 (Annex.4), wherein at the relevant time the said order was, inter-alia, placed before the Cabinet Sub Committee. The respondents have produced the Standing Order dated 07.02.2019, wherein the proposal involving policy and initiation of new principles, have to be disposed of by the Joint Secretary/Deputy Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary of the Department and requires approval of the Health Minister. The note-sheets produced for perusal of the Court clearly indicates that the aspect of award of bonus marks, which is reflected in the order dated 25.04.2023 (Annex.10) has undergone discussions at various levels, both in the Finance Department as well as the Medical & Health Department and ultimately the recruitment notification, order for award of bonus marks etc. The note-sheets produced for perusal of the Court clearly indicates that the aspect of award of bonus marks, which is reflected in the order dated 25.04.2023 (Annex.10) has undergone discussions at various levels, both in the Finance Department as well as the Medical & Health Department and ultimately the recruitment notification, order for award of bonus marks etc. have all been approved by all concerned, including the Health Minister and as such the plea raised regarding order dated 25.04.2023 (Annex.10) having been issued without following the due procedure also has no substance. 22. So far as the plea raised by the State pertaining to the award of bonus marks being a policy decision is concerned, qua the same provision i.e. Rule 19 and the notification dated 30.05.2018 issued by the State, wherein the marks inter-alia, for those who had worked outside the State, have not been provided, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satya Dev Bhagaur (supra), inter-alia, came to the following conclusion: “13. Rule 19, which has been reproduced by us in the beginning itself, provides that in the case of appointment to the post of Nurse Compounder Junior Grade, the merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of the marks obtained in such qualifying examination specified in the Schedule appended to the said Rules. It further provides that bonus marks as specified by the State Government, having regard to the length of experience on similar work under the Government, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh and National Rural Health Mission, would be added to the qualifying marks. 14. From the material placed on record, it appears that the policy of the State of Rajasthan is that while selecting Nurse Compounder Junior Grade, the bonus marks are to be given to such employees who have done similar work under the State Government and under the various schemes. The question thus, would be whether such bonus marks would also be available to the contractual employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in other States. 15. It is trite that the Courts would be slow in interfering in the policy matters, unless the policy is found to be palpably discriminatory and arbitrary. The question thus, would be whether such bonus marks would also be available to the contractual employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in other States. 15. It is trite that the Courts would be slow in interfering in the policy matters, unless the policy is found to be palpably discriminatory and arbitrary. This court would not interfere with the policy decision when a State is in a position to point out that there is intelligible differentia in application of policy and that such intelligible differentia has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 16. This Court in the case of Krishnan Kakkanth vs. Government of Kerala and others has observed thus: “36. To ascertain unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is not necessary to enter upon any exercise for finding out the wisdom in the policy decision of the State Government. It is immaterial whether a better or more comprehensive policy decision could have been taken. It is equally immaterial if it can be demonstrated that the policy decision is unwise and is likely to defeat the purpose for which such decision has been taken. Unless the policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason whatsoever or it suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or provisions of the Constitution, the policy decision cannot be struck down. It should be borne in mind that except for the limited purpose of testing a public policy in the context of illegality and unconstitutionality, courts should avoid “embarking on uncharted ocean of public policy.” 23. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Archana Etc. : Civil Appeal No.11406-11407 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.32008-32009/2013) decided on 29.11.2016, inter-alia, in the context of policy of the State Government regarding grant of bonus marks in the Panchayati Raj Department it has been laid down that the policy propounded by the State must be allowed to operate on its own terms. 24. However, it is also settled that in the name of policy decision, the State cannot seek to have a policy, which is arbitrary/discriminatory. 24. However, it is also settled that in the name of policy decision, the State cannot seek to have a policy, which is arbitrary/discriminatory. Qua the plea raised with regard to policy being arbitrary or discriminatory, it is common knowledge that COVID-19 pandemic descended on the mankind from nowhere and within no time, the entire World was in its grip, wherein innumerable persons irrespective of age, suffered during the said period, which was the most challenging time for the Governments throughout the World. When the State sought to engage on contractual/adhoc/urgent temporary basis persons for the purpose of undertaking COVID-19 related works, those who came forward and served the public at large in protecting the lives of the people, when none even was stepping out of their protective residential environment and on account of their assistance/providing of services to all those affected, while risking their own lives, the policy decision of the State in providing them with additional benefit, can neither be said to be arbitrary nor discriminatory qua those who either being qualified, chose not to provide their services/assistance during COVID-19 pandemic and/or were engaged in safer environment/vocation. 25. The submission made that those who had worked even for short duration during COVID-19 period from 22.03.2020 to 13.02.2022, irrespective of quantum of the said period, have been made entitled to 15 bonus marks being unjustified, also apparently has no substance in view of submission made on behalf of State indicating that there may be several instances wherein though the person was engaged for COVID-19 services, within a short period, the said candidate(s) himself got affected by COVID-19 and/or was unable to further provide the assistance/his services, the said person also is entitled for award of bonus marks and that much thought has gone into providing 15 bonus marks up to two years only with a view to ensure that those who have stood by the State Government, for showing their willingness to take the pandemic head on and provided services, should be given some additional benefit, in absence of which they would not be able to compete with those who had not worked during COVID-19 pandemic. The very fact that the respondents have restricted the said award of 15 bonus marks up to two years, and thereafter for those who have worked for two or more years, have been provided 20/30 bonus marks, clearly establishes the plea raised seeking to provide additional benefit only for the purpose of bringing those who had worked during COVID-19 in a competing position with others, which action of the respondents cannot be faulted on any count. 26. So far as the question raised regarding there being no promise made to those who had worked during COVID-19 period is concerned, as noticed hereinbefore, in the trying time of pandemic, to expect that State should have thought of promising the candidates regarding grant of bonus marks and in absence whereof, they cannot provide for the bonus marks by way of a policy decision, cannot be countenanced. The fact of matter is that the very fact that even in absence of any promise, the candidates had served during the pandemic, by itself is sufficient to come to a conclusion regarding their entitlement of additional benefit looking to their commitment in providing help/services/succor to the mankind. 27. In view of above discussion, there is no substance in these writ petitions, the same are therefore, dismissed.