ORDER : 1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy, though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14080/2023 while treating the same as a lead case, rival submissions of the parties and the observations of the Court, in the present order, would also be based, particularly, on the factual matrix of the lead case. 1.1 The prayer clauses read as under:- "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and by and appropriate writ, order or directions; (i) the respondents may kindly be directed to award 10 bonus marks to the petitioner for the period for which he is working as GNM through Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society for more than one year in addition to 15 bonus marks which granted to the petitioner for the Covid period. (ii) the respondents may kindly be directed to grant total 25 bonus marks i.e. 15 bonus marks for In wake of onslaught of COVID- 19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court. period as GNM and 10 bonus marks for which petitioner working additionally one year through Rajasthan Medicare Relief society and (iii) the respondents may kindly be further directed after granting 25 bonus marks to the petitioner revised the list of documents verification which issued vide information dated 29.08.2023 (Annex. 11) and if petitioner stands in merit list then he called for documents verification and further if his name figured in the final merit list then he may be given appointment on the post of Nursing Officer in pursuance of the advertisement dated 05.05.2023 (Annex.8.). 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. Costs of the wit petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy in these cases is emanating out of the recruitment to the various posts i.e. of Nursing and Paramedical Officer, Female Health Worker, Lab Technician and Dental Technician. Costs of the wit petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy in these cases is emanating out of the recruitment to the various posts i.e. of Nursing and Paramedical Officer, Female Health Worker, Lab Technician and Dental Technician. Initially the recruitment was initiated by the State Government vide advertisement dated 16.11.2022 to be conducted in accordance with the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1965’), but subsequently the advertisement was withdrawn and a fresh advertisement was issued on 05.05.2023 whereby the same recruitment was to be done under the Rules of 1965. 3. The bone of contention being the bonus marks to be given and not to be given arose and the experience clauses prompted the petitioners to come before this Court. The broader controversy was also laid before the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in case of Bhanwar Kumar Bagaria & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5980/2022) alongwith other connected matters, in which, the interim order was not granted by Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench, but the protection of the selection process remaining subject to the final outcome of the writ petition was granted. The order dated 08.08.2023 reads as follows: “Heard. Except D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3471/2022, which is a PIL seeking direction for expeditious completion of selection process, all other petitions seek to challenge the constitutional validity of the provisions contained in respect of recruitment rules for appointment to the post of Pharmacist, Nursing Officer, Homeopathy Medical Officer & Ayurved Medical Officer. A prayer has been made for staying operation of the rule and recruitment process for appointment to the post of Pharmacist, Nursing Officer, Homeopathy Medical Officer & Ayurved Medical Officer on the ground that the process of recruitment does not include written examination, but is based on assessment of merit on the basis of performance in qualifying examination and weightage for actual experience of working on the respective post, by providing bonus marks. Learned counsels for the petitioners in various petitions raise common submissions to the effect that impugned provision for selection on various posts is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsels for the petitioners in various petitions raise common submissions to the effect that impugned provision for selection on various posts is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsels, relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Another Versus State of M.P. and Others and other batch of petitions, (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 120 and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Others Versus Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Others, (1985) 3 Supreme Court Cases 22, Shri Chander Chinar Bada Akhara Udasin Society and Others Versus State of J & K and Others, (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 732, Ravindra Kumar Rai Versus State of Maharashtra and Others, (1998) 3 Supreme Court Cases 183, Vishesh Kumar Versus Shanti Prasad, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 378, Romesh Kumar Sharma Versus Union of India and Others, (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 510 & Ramjit Singh Kardam and Others Versus Sanjeev Kumar and Others, (2020) 20 Supreme Court Cases 209, would submit that the process of selection involving assessment of merit only on the basis of marks obtained in qualifying examination or interview has been held to be arbitrary, as it does not fulfill the objective of selection of best candidates on the ground of suitability. It is contended that assessment of merit of candidates in the competitive examination on the basis of marks obtained in qualifying examination has been consistently held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the marks are obtained by the candidates from different educational institutions with varying standards of courses of study, quality of teaching & pattern of examination. In such cases, holding selection and assessing merit on the basis of qualifying marks as provided in the impugned rules would be violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that while the main provision provides for written examination, proviso contains provisions which are contrary to the scheme contained in the main part of the rule. It is also contended that while the main provision provides for written examination, proviso contains provisions which are contrary to the scheme contained in the main part of the rule. On the other hand, learned Advocate General, relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Chitralekha & Another Versus State of Mysore and Others, AIR 1964 SC 1823 and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kiran Gupta and Others Versus State of U.P. and Others, (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 719, Srinivas K. Gouda Versus Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences and Others, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 49, Anzar Ahmad Versus State of Bihar and Others, (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 150, Health for Millions Versus Union of India and Others, (2014) 14 Supreme Court Cases 496, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another Versus Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, (1984) 4 Supreme Court Cases 27, Forum for People’s Collective Efforts (FPCE) and Another Versus State of West Bengal and Another, (2021) 8 Supreme Court Cases 599, Rana Randhir Singh and Others Versus State of U.P. and Others & Other Batch of petitions, (1989) Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 615, Ashutosh Gupta Versus State of Rajasthan and Others, (2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 34, State of Rajasthan & Others Versus Archana ETC., Civil Appeal No.11406-11407 of 2016, decided on 26.11.2016, Manoj Kumar Acharya Versus The State of Rajasthan and Others and other batch of appeals, Civil Appeal No.12335/2016, decided on 18.01.2022, Dhanraj Versus Vikram Singh and Others, Civil Appeal No.3117/2009, decided on 10.05.2023 as also the Single Bench judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of R. Subramanian & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu & Others, Writ Petition No.29313 of 2019 and other batch of writ petitions, decided on 21.11.2019 and the Single Bench judgment of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Mahendra Kumar Versus State of Rajasthan & Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9352 of 2013, decided on 26.09.2013, the Single Bench judgment of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Anand Kumar Versus State of Rajasthan and Another and other batch of petitions, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.365/1978, would submit that present is not a case where the process of selection is based only on marks obtained in qualifying examination. He would submit that for the purpose of assessing merit of the candidates, the rule not only postulates assessment of merit on the basis of academic performance, but also weightage to be given by way of bonus marks for experience gained by working on various posts. He would submit that in various judgments cited by the respondents, combination of marks in qualifying examination and interview or marks in qualifying examination and bonus marks has been upheld and the challenge to such process of selection on the ground that they violate Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, has been repelled. He would further submit that in the exigencies of service when large number of posts in the health department are lying vacant and there is need for manning the posts in various cadre like Pharmacist, Nursing Officer, Homeopathy Medical Officer, Ayurved Medical Officer and other posts, which are thousands in number, the scheme of the rule providing for assessment of merit on more than one criteria and not merely confined to marks obtained in qualifying examination cannot be said to be arbitrary. He would further submit that, even if, it is held that holding of written examination with combination of qualifying marks, weightage marks & interview has been found to be one of the permissible methods of selection, it cannot be said that invariably in all cases, if written examination is not held, the scheme of selection would necessarily be violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhanraj Versus Vikram Singh & Others (Supra), it has been submitted that present is not a case where the process of recruitment is under challenge on the ground of violation of the provisions of recruitment, but the rule itself is under challenge and, therefore, unless the statutory provisions are declared constitutionally invalid, the process of selection may not be stayed as that would amount to staying the operation of the rules. Learned Advocate General would next submit that, even if, an arguable case is made out, which this Court may examine, if the process of selection is stayed, the public interest would be adversely affected as the process of recruitment is being held to fill up more than 13,000 posts in different cadres, as on account of large number of vacancies, health services in the State are being adversely affected. The interest of the petitioners may be protected by making the selection process subject to the final result. Learned counsels for the parties have cited various judgments and we have extensively heard both the parties on the issue of stay. While learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramjit Singh Kardam and Others Versus Sanjeev Kumar and Others (Supra), learned Advocate General has also placed before this Court several judgments where, even though the process of selection did not involve written examination, a combination of other criteria like marks obtained in qualifying examination with weightage for experience of actual working on the post for which the recruitment is being made or other cases with different combination without there being written examination, selection has been upheld. In the case of Ramjit Singh Kardam and Others Versus Sanjeev Kumar and Others (Supra), the process of selection initially comprised of written examination, but later on written examination was not held and the only basis for short listing was interview, which was held to be bad in law. We further find that the interest of the petitioners can be protected by making the selection process subject to the final outcome of these petitions except D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3471/2022. Therefore, having regard to the considerations as above, though we are not inclined to halt entire process of selection, we order that selection and appointment, if any made, would be subject to final outcome of these petitions except D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3471/2022. The respondents while making any appointments shall clearly state that those appointments are subject to final outcome of these petitions except D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3471/2022. Stay applications are, accordingly, disposed off. All these petitions be listed for final hearing in the month of October, 2023.” 4. The respondents while making any appointments shall clearly state that those appointments are subject to final outcome of these petitions except D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3471/2022. Stay applications are, accordingly, disposed off. All these petitions be listed for final hearing in the month of October, 2023.” 4. Learned counsel for the parties are in broader agreement that the grant of bonus marks under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 is accepted legal proposition, however, the aspects of such bonus marks including the experience, type of experience, work discharged and other avenues were required to be visited by the respondents before going into the merits. 5. On the last date Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. K.S. Lodha and Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Rajat Arora submitted that the State at the highest level is considering formation of the Committee, which shall address all the issues, which are pending adjudication before this Court. 6. Mr. Singhvi, learned Advocate General today in pursuance of his earlier submission has brought on record an order dated 03.11.2023 whereby a Committee has been constituted for addressing all the issues, which are pending before this Court and it is submitted that the core issues are being dealt with as a policy decision to be referred to the Committee, which are Item Nos. 37, 39, 41 and 42, which are reproduced as follows: 37- vuqHko izek.k i=ksa dk lR;kiuA ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa nk;j ifjoknksa esa cM+h la[;k esa ifjokn vuqHko izek.k i=ksa o ns; cksul dks ysdj nk;j fd;s x;s gSA lkFk gh ;g Hkh egRoiw.kZ gS fd fofHkUu ifjosnukvksa ds ek/;e ls vH;fFkZ;ksa us vf/kd`r vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk tkjh vuqHko izek.k i=ksa dh izekf.kdrk ij vkifRr ntZ dh gSA lkFk gh ;g Hkh ,d rF; gS fd ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj us fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 19677@2022 ykykjke cuke ljdkj o vU; esa fu.kZ; ikfjr dj jkT; ljdkj dks izek.k i=ksa dh izekf.kdrk ,oa bldh izfof"V;ksa dh tkap dj fu.kZ; ysus dk vf/kdkj o ftEesnkjh nh gSA vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds mDr fu.kZ; ds ifjizs{; esa ;g vko';d gks tkrk gS fd jkT; ljdkj Lrj ij leLr vuqHko izek.k i=ksa dh tkjhdrkZ vf/kdkjh@izfrfuf/k dh mifLFkfr esa fjdkMZ ls lR;kiu dj tkap dh tk;s rkfd voS/k@vuqfpr <ax ls tkjh vuqHko izek.k i= dks fujLr dj ,sls leLr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds vfu;fer p;u dks jksdk tk ldsA bl gsrq izFke pj.k esa jkT; ljdkj ds ek/;e ls lHkh vf/kd`r vuqHko izek.k i= tkjhdrkZ vf/kdkfj;ksa dks fn'kk&funsZ'k o iquZlR;kiu izi= fnukad 10-11-2023 rd izsf"kr fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gS ftlesa os fnukad 10-12-2023 rd muds }kjk tkjh fd, x, leLr vuqHko izek.k i=ksa dh vkosndokj@inokj tkudkjh ntZ dj ldsaA fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx ds v/khu lapkfyr laLFkkuksa ds laca/k esa i`Fkd ls Hkh izeq[k 'kklu lfpo egksn;] fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx dks mDr dk;Z ds laca/k esa i= fy[kk tkuk izLrkfor gSA blds mijkUr fnukad 11-12-2023 ls 31-01-2024 rd dk;ZØe cukdj ftys@tkjhdrkZ vfèkdkjhokj iquZlR;kiu gsrq jkT; LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k laLFkku] t;iqj esa leLr vfèkdkfj;ksa dks e; leLr fjdkMZ ds vkeaf=r fd;k tk;sxk ,oa funs'kd] 'khQw }kjk vko';drk vuqlkj Vhe cukdj tkjh vuqHko çek.k i=ks dk lR;kiu@ çekf.kdj.k djok;k tk;sxk ,oa bl iquZlR;kiu ds ifj.kke dks çksfotuy lwph ds MsVk esa v|ru fd;k tk;sxk rkfd vafre p;u lwph esa bldk lekos'k fd;k tk ldsA lfefr }kjk tkjh fd;s x;s vuqHko çek.k i=ksa ds lacaèk esa f'kdk;rs çkIr gksus rFkk cMh la[;k esa U;kf;d çdj.k ntZ gksus fd fLFkfr dks xaHkhj ekurs gq;s bl ij euu fd;k x;kA vuqHko çek.k i= tkjh djus esa dh xbZ vfu;ferrk, fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa Lohdk;Z ugha gSA vuqHko çek.k i= tkjh djus esa cjrh xbZ vfu;ferrkvksa ds lacaèk esa lacafèkr vfèkdkjh ds fo:) dBksj vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh vey esa yk;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA pwafd ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa cMh la[;k esa buds lacaèk esa çdj.k ntZ gks jgs gS] vr% vuqHko çek.k i=ksa dh iquZ tkap dk dk;Z djok;k tkuk vko';d gSaA vr% bl gsrq leLr vuqHko çek.k i= tkjhdrkZ vfèkdkfj;ksa dks bl ckcr~ i`Fkd ls iquZlR;kiu gsrq ifjf'k"V tkjh fd;k tkdj mUgsa fnukad 10-12-2023 rd muds }kjk tkjh fd;s x;s vuqHko çek.k i=ksa esa ntZ dh xbZ lwpuk dks iqu% ntZ djus dk volj çnku fd;k tk;sA rRi'pkr vuqHko çek.k i=ksa dh xgjkbZ ls tkap djus gsrq 'khQw esa dSEi yxkdj] vuqHko çek.k tkjhdrkZ vfèkdkfj;ksa dks fjdkMZ lfgr cqyok;s tkus dk dk;Z fnukad 11-12-2023 ls 31-01-2024 rd fd;k tk;sA foHkkx }kjk Lo;a ds Lrj ij vuqHko çek.k i=ksa dh tkap ds lacaèk fd;s tkus okys dk;Z ds lacaèk Jheku~ egkfèkoäk ds ekè;e ls ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks Hkh lwfpr fd;k tk;sA vuqHko çek.k i=ksa dk iquZlR;kiu@çek.khdj.k djok;k tkdj bldk lekos'k vafre p;u lwph tkjh djus esa fd;k tk;s rFkk mä dk;Z esa ykijokgh cjrus okys tkjhdrkZ vfèkdkfj;ksa ds fo:) l[r vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tk;sA pwafd vuqHko vkèkkfjr cksul vad esfjV lwph dks o`gn :i ls çHkkfor djrk gSA vr% ;g vko';d gS fd fdlh Hkh vH;FkÊ dks xyr cksul vad uk fn;s tk;saA vr% foHkkx }kjk vuqHko çek.k i=ksa dk lR;kiu @ çek.khdj.k djk;k tkuk vko';d gS ,oa iquZçek.khdj.k ifj.kke ds vuqlkj çksfotuy esfjV lwph dks la'kksfèkr dj gh vafre p;u lwph tkjh fd;k tkuk ;Fkksfpr gksxkA vè;{k egksn;k us funZs'k iznku fd;s fd vuqHko iquZlR;kiu izek.k i= dks ;FkklaHko ljy cuk;k tk;s ftlls fd lwpuk vafdr djus okys vfèkdkjh dks bl gsrq dfBukbZ mRiUu ugha gksA 39- ifjosnukvksa dk fuLrkj.kA 7 inksa gsrq tkjh dh xbZ izksfotuy lwfp;ksa ij vkWuykbZu iksVZy ij vH;fFkZ;ksa ls vkifÙk ntZ djok;s tkus gsrq ifjosnuk,a vkeaf=r dh xbZ FkhA vafre rkSj ij 17-10-2023 rd ifjosnuk,a çkIr dh xbZ gSaA çkIr ifjosnukvksa dks ifjosnuk fuLrkj.k lfefr ds le{k j[kk tkdj fuLrkj.k djok;k tkdj MsVk esa vko';d la'kksèku mijkUr vafre p;u lwph tkjh dh tkuh gksxhA ifjosnukvksa ds lacaèk esa cSad }kjk vuqcafèkr QeZ }kjk miyCèk djk;s x;s MkVk esa lqèkkj fd, tkus dh vko';drk gSA ftl gsrq mUgsa i= }kjk funZsf'kr dj fn;k x;k gSA yxHkx 5000 ifjosnukvksa ij dk;Zokgh dh tkuh gSA bl gsrq çkIr ifjosnukvksa dks bUækt djokus dh dk;Zokgh çfØ;kèkhu gSA bUækt dh dk;Zokgh iw.kZ gksus ds mijkUr çR;sd vH;FkÊ dh ifjosnuk dk mlds vkosnu QkeZ ds lkFk layXu nLrkostksa ls feyku foHkkxh; fVIi.kh ds lkFk ifjosnuk fuLrkj.k lfefr ds le{k çLrqr fd;k tk;sxkA ifjosnuk fuLrkj.k lfefr }kjk ifjosnukvksa dk fuLrkj.k dj fn;s tkus ds mijkUr rn~uqlkj çksfotuy esfjV esa vko';d la'kksèku dj ifjosnuk fuLrkj.k lfefr ds dk;Zokgh fooj.k dk çdk'ku Lihfdax v‚MZj ¼vk[;kRed vkns'k½ tkjh dj fd;k tk ldsxkA ifjosnuk fuLrkj.k dk dk;Z vfr laosnu'khy ç—fr dk gksus ,oa ifjosnukvksa dh la[;k dks ns[krs gq;s ;g dk;Z fnukad 31-01- 2024 rd iw.kZ gksus dh laHkkouk gSA uflZax ,oa iSjkesfMdy laoxZ esa tkjh dh xbZ varfje p;u lwfp;ksa ij çkIr gksus okyh v‚uykbZu ifjosnukvksa dk dk;Z vfr&egRoiw.kZ gksus ij desVh ds lHkh lnL;ksa ,der gSA varfje p;u lwfp;ksa ds lacaèk esa ntZ fd;s tkus okys U;kf;d çdj.kksa fd la[;k ds – f"Vxr] çkIr gksus okyh ifjosnukvksa dk lgh fuLrkj.k vR;ar egRoiw.kZ dk;Z gSA ifjosnuk, vkeaf=r fd;s tkus ls Li"V gS fd foHkkx Lo;a vius Lrj ij bldh xaHkhjrk ds fy;s ltx ,oa ç;kljr gSA çkIr ifjosnuvksa dk fuLrkj.k ifjosnuk fuLrkj.k lfefr ds ekè;e ls fnukad 31-01-2024 rd iw.kZ djrs gq;s ifjosnuk fuLrkj.k lfefr ds dk;Zokgh fooj.k dk çdk'ku fu;ekuqlkj fd;k tk;sA ifjosnuk fuLrkj.k fd;s tkus ds lacaèk esa fd;s tk jgsa dk;Z ls ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks Hkh Jheku egkfèkoäk ds ekè;e ls voxr djok;k tk;sA 41- dk;Z ;kstuk fcUnq la[;k 3 ls 9 esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k fopkjk/khu izdj.kksa ds n`f"Vxr ,d ekg dk fjtoZ le;A ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa izfØ;k/khu HkfrZ;ksa esa lh,p, dks vuqHko fn, tkus] lh,pvks dks vuqHko ugha fn, tkus] cksul vad 15 fn, tkus ds laca/k esa cMh la[;k esa egRoiw.kZ izdj.k fopkjk/khu gSa ;|fi foHkkx ,oa laLFkku }kjk mDr ;kfpdkvksa esa Jheku egkf/koDrk jktLFkku ljdkj ds ek/;e ls izHkkoh :i ls jkT; i{k j[kok;k tkdj HkrhZ izfØ;k ds fo:) fu.kZ; ikfjr ugha fd, tkus gsrq lHkh laHko iz;kl fd;s tk jgs gS] rks Hkh mijksDr esa ls fdlh Hkh izdj.k esa foijhr fu.kZ; ikfjr fd, tkus dh fLFkfr esa varfje p;u lwfp;ksa esa Hkkjh cnyko djus dh vko';drk gksxh ftl dkj.k ,d ekg dh vfrfjDr fjtoZ vof/k dk izko/kku j[kk tkuk mfpr gksxkA izLrkokuqlkj vuqeksfnrA 42- vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk ifjosnuk fuLrkj.k ls iwoZ gh ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa ifjokn nk;j fd;s tkus ls fjV ;kfpdk ds izh&eSPksj ?kksf"kr djok;s tkus gsrq ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks voxr djk;k tkukA mijksDr fcUnq la[;k 10 ij izLrkfor dk;Z ;kstuk ds vuweksnu mijkUr izfØ;k/khu xfrfof/k;ksa tSls [ksydwn izek.k i=ksa dh tkap] vkj,ulh ls lacaf/kr izdj.k] vuqHko izek.k i=ksa dk lR;kiu] vU; jkT;ksa ls O;kolkf;d ;ksX;rk izkIr vH;fFkZ;ksa dh vadrkfydkvksa dk lR;kiu ,oa blesa yxus okys le; ds cikjs esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks voxr djkrs gq;s mijksDr ls lacaf/kr orZeku esa nk;j fjV ;kfpdkvksa dks izh&eSPksj ?kksf"kr djok;k tkuk vFkok jkT; ljdkj ds i{k esa REPRESENTATION DECIDE ¼vH;kosnu fuLrkj.k½ djus ds vkns'k ikfjr djk;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA bl gsrq Jheku egkf/koDrk egksn;] jktLFkku ljdkj ls jk; izkIr dj mudh jk; ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA desVh ds lnL;ksa }kjk cM+h la[;k esa U;kf;d izdj.k ntZ gksus ds dkj.k vf/kdka'k vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dk le; buesa yx tkus ,oa bl dkj.k ls HkrhZ izfØ;k ds 'ks"k dk;Z izHkkfor gksus ij euu fd;k x;kA lnL;ksa }kjk dk;Z ;kstuk vuqlkj dh tkus okyh xfrfof/k;ka tSls [ksy izek.k i=kas dh tkap] mU; jkT;ksa ls O;kolkf;d ;ksX;rk izkIr djus okys vkosndksa dh tkap] dkSafly ls lacaf/kr izdj.ksa dk fuLrkj.k] vuqHko izek.k i=ksa dk vfr xaHkhjrkiwoZd iquZlR;kiu] varfje p;u lwph ij izkIr ifjosnukvksa dk ifjosnuk fuLrkj.k lfefr ds ek/;e ls fuLrkj.k djok;k tkuk vkfn rFkk blesa yxus okys le; ds laca/k esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks rn~uqlkj voxr djok;k tkdj] orZeku esa nk;j fjV ;kfpdkvksa dks izh&eSPksj ?kksf"kr djokus vFkok foHkkx ds i{k esa vH;kosnu fuLrkj.k ds vkns'k ikfjr djokus ds laca/k esa Jheku~ egkf/koDrk dks vuqjks/k fd;k tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA fy[ks tkus okys i= esa dk;Z ;kstuk oFkk vuqekfur le;&lhek dk Hkh mYys[k fd;k tk;sA 7. Mr. Singhvi, learned Advocate General has also pointed out to the policy decisions taken for Item Nos. 32 to 44, which touch various other issues, which are under adjudication before this Court. The sum and substance of the report is that the State at the decision making level is prepared to go into the whole issue even when the recruitment process has culminated into a provisional merit-list, which has been challenged by the petitioners before this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in case the some of the petitioners may not have already filed the representations before the State, there might be issues which shall be deprived from the consideration by the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in case the present petitions are disposed of while leaving it to the policy decisions of the State, which has been brought on record dated 03.11.2023, then appropriate protection may be granted to the petitioners to approach this Court again in case need arises. They also submit that any sudden declaration of the select list/final selection list may also dampen the prospects of the petitioners to get their rights remedied before this Hon’ble Court. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that there are previous orders of this Hon’ble Court, which may impact the issues, which are involved before the Committee. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have to strictly abide by the Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 and any excess or non-application of bonus marks have to be seriously dealt with while giving reasons. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners have been seriously prejudiced by the available provisional selection list for the recruitment of 25.04.2023 for the purpose of Nursing Officer and other Paramedical Officers because even when they have been discharging duties for long time including the sensitive and critical period of bonus marks of the Covid times they are not getting the desired benefit. 12. Mr. Singhvi, learned Advocate General assures this Court that all the issues including the issue of bonus marks to the Covid Health Assistant, which are within the realm of the policy, which has been formulated on 03.11.2023 shall be looked into and detailed orders after proper consideration shall be passed. 13. Mr. 12. Mr. Singhvi, learned Advocate General assures this Court that all the issues including the issue of bonus marks to the Covid Health Assistant, which are within the realm of the policy, which has been formulated on 03.11.2023 shall be looked into and detailed orders after proper consideration shall be passed. 13. Mr. Singhvi, learned Advocate General further assures this Court that once the appropriate consideration of the respondents has been made, there still would be ample vacancies left in case any select list is published for the purpose of purposive adjudication of any remaining dispute. He also assures this Court that each of the issues, particularly the items Nos.37, 39, 41 and 42 and also items Nos.32 to 44 shall be taken care of by the experts and appropriate decision regarding the representations and the grievances raised shall be taken. 14. Mr. Singhvi, learned Advocate General submits that it is the prerogative of the State to conduct the selection process and while being conscious of the prejudices, which have been generated out of the advertisements dated 05.05.2023, 19.05.2023, 13.05.2023 & 13.06.2023, the State itself being the custodian of the selection process has in its own wisdom decided to address each and every issue which is before it and while revisiting such issues to make appropriate considered decision without prejudice to any of the decisions taken earlier. 15. Upon such submissions having been made and while keeping into consideration the order passed by the Division Bench at Jaipur of this Hon’ble Court in Bhanwar Kumar Bagaria (Supra) as well as the assurances given by learned Advocate General, this Court deems it appropriate to give the following directions :- A. All the representations shall be properly organized by the State to have a proper and elaborate consideration of the same. B. In case any of the petitioner has failed to file the representation, it shall be open for the petitioner or any other affected person by the advertisements for the recruitment of Nursing and Paramedical Officers etc. to file such representation within a period of 20 days from today alongwith certified/web copy of this order. C. Such representations shall be considered by the State while keeping into consideration the policy decision taken by the State on 03.11.2023 and the deliberations regarding the issues in question. to file such representation within a period of 20 days from today alongwith certified/web copy of this order. C. Such representations shall be considered by the State while keeping into consideration the policy decision taken by the State on 03.11.2023 and the deliberations regarding the issues in question. D. The State shall be required to take a considered stand on each of the broader controversy before publishing the final select list, after considering the grievance raised in such representations. E. It shall be open for the petitioners to approach this Court again after the State has applied its mind on the representations and passed appropriate speaking orders strictly in accordance with law. F. The State shall strictly adhere to the Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 while deciding all these representations. G. The decision taken by the State shall be uploaded on the website. H. In case any issue beyond the policy decision dated 03.11.2023 also remains, the petitioners shall be at liberty to file representations within a period of 20 days from today alongwith certified/web copy of this order, which shall also be considered appropriately by the respondent-State. I. In case the matters come back to this Court, it shall be open for the both parties to raise all their issues as this Court has not entered into the merits of the controversy while passing today’s order. 16. In view of the above, the present petitions are disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.