JUDGMENT : SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. After hearing the arguments averred and with consent of learned counsel for both the parties, vide order dated 28.05.2024 the instant matter was reserved. BACKGROUND 2. The instant petition is filed assailing the impugned provisional list dated 01.08.2023, issued by the respondents. In the said list the respondents, granted bonus marks for the work experience on the basis of ‘similar work’, to all the contractual employees working under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). 3. The crux of the matter is that the respondent no. 2 issued advertisement no. 03/2023, under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 (hereafter referred as the Rules of 1973), inviting applications for 358 posts for Homeopathic Medical Officers (Annexure-2). Thereafter, an amended notification dated 23.05.2023 was published by the said respondents, inserting Rule 19 of the Rules of 1973, for the grant of bonus marks to the candidates. After undergoing the examination for the said post, the petitioners were selected and appointed as Ayush Homeopathic Doctors. Presently, the petitioners are working at various Community Health Centres and Primary Health Centres located within the state of Rajasthan, on ad hoc/contractual basis. 4. Considering the long period of service the petitioners were certified with work experience certificate undersigned by the authorities of the Office of Chief Medical and Health officer of different districts. (Annexure-7). 5. The controversy arose when the impugned provisional list was issued by the respondents. Wherein, the respondents granted bonus marks to candidates, considering the ‘similar work’ experience. Moreover, the instant petition was preferred when after attaining the requisite information via RTI, as the person working under the RBSK scheme including the respondent no. 5-7 were not entitled of the said bonus marks as they were only discharging duties of ‘screening’ qua the children at various Aanganwadis, madarsas and government schools, whereas the petitioners were/are discharging the other duties of a Homeopathic Doctor as that of diagnosing, treating and prescribing the medicines to the patients. PLEADINGS 6. 5-7 were not entitled of the said bonus marks as they were only discharging duties of ‘screening’ qua the children at various Aanganwadis, madarsas and government schools, whereas the petitioners were/are discharging the other duties of a Homeopathic Doctor as that of diagnosing, treating and prescribing the medicines to the patients. PLEADINGS 6. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned provisional list, dated 02.08.2023 issued by the respondent department, wherein, in an illegal and arbitrary manner, the respondent-department granted bonus marks for work experience qua the ‘similar work’ to all the ‘contractual employees’ working under the National Rural Health mission (NRHM) and Ayush Doctors of the Rashtriya Bal Swasthay Karyakarm (RBSK). It was next submitted that the said employees were persons who were qualified ‘Homeopathic Doctors’, having degree of Doctor in Homeopathy, but were not practicing as doctors and were involved in work of ‘screening’ of the students in various schools, qua diagnosis regarding their deformities. Hence, the said services which were per se rendered by the said contractual employees, does not fall under the ambit of ‘similar work’ definition. Therefore, the bonus marks so awarded by the respondent department to the said candidates dehors the conditions requisite in the said advertisement and Rule 19 of the Rules of 1973. 7. In this regard, reliance was also placed upon the operational guidelines of RBSK Scheme (Annexure-9) and the screening referral card (Annexure-10). Learned counsel had further submitted that point no. – 5 of the Operational Guidelines, categorically states that for the children belonging to the age group of 6 to 18 years, who would be screened in the government and the government aided schools, at least three dedicated ‘Mobile Health Teams’ will be allotted to each block. The main function of the said team was to conduct the ‘screening’ of the children. Thereafter, it was explicitly made clear, that the said teams will be provided with certain equipment, which might be essential/required for the process of screening. Some of the said equipment included bell, rattle, truce, coloured wool, referral screening cards etc. It was next averred that the primary duty of the RBSK Mobile Health Team was only to screen the children. Thereafter, only post screening, the children, if so needed, were sent to the PHC/CHC to be treated by the practicing Doctors. 8. Some of the said equipment included bell, rattle, truce, coloured wool, referral screening cards etc. It was next averred that the primary duty of the RBSK Mobile Health Team was only to screen the children. Thereafter, only post screening, the children, if so needed, were sent to the PHC/CHC to be treated by the practicing Doctors. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and respondents had vehemently opposed the contentions levelled by the learned counsel for the petitioners and had submitted that the conditions of the advertisement categorically states, that the duties and the work of ‘screening’ could only be performed by the Doctors (Annexure-9). Therefore, the bonus marks qua the ‘similar work’, so awarded by the respondent-department, is reasonable and justified. It was next submitted by the learned counsel, that the NRHM had duly informed, that any person possessing the requisite qualifications i.e. MBBS/BAMS/BHMS (Homeopathy) shall be eligible qua the said posts. Furthermore, the private respondents herein, possess the said degree of BHMS (Homeopathy). Hence, they were rendering service under the said scheme. Therefore, the services rendered by them shall be construed as the ‘similar work’ and the bonus marks, so awarded to them is legally appropriate. 9. Learned counsel for the State had further submitted that the words ‘similar work’ had to be interpreted by the appointing authority/employer only. Hence, the petitioners cannot refute and rebut to the definition and interpretation, made by the respondent-appointing authority. 10. Heard and considered. FINDING 11. This Court has considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the records and considered the references and judgments cited at the Bar. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to pen down, certain undisputable facts: 11.1 That the advertisement no. 03/2023, dated 05.07.2023 was issued, for the recruitment qua the post of Homeopathic Medical Officer under Rajasthan Ayurveda, Unani and Nephropathy Service Rules, 1973. The relevant portion of the said advertisement is reproduced below: 11.2 That the said advertisement has precisely made it clear that if any candidate performs/has performed ‘similar work’ for a period of one year, he/she shall be awarded with 10 marks as bonus, subject to the upper limit of 30 marks, for the respective year. The relevant portion of the said advertisement is reproduced below: 11.2 That the said advertisement has precisely made it clear that if any candidate performs/has performed ‘similar work’ for a period of one year, he/she shall be awarded with 10 marks as bonus, subject to the upper limit of 30 marks, for the respective year. 11.3 That upon a perusal of Annexure-9 i.e. Operational guidelines qua the RBSC Scheme, the following can be analyzed: 11.3.1 That the said scheme is issued by the Ministry of Health and family Welfare, Union of India. 11.3.2 That the said scheme is to be effectuated by the Child Health Medical Officer and Intervention Services under MRHM. 11.3.3 That point no. 5.3 of the said guidelines, has made it mandatory to form a ‘Mobile Health Team’, which shall consist of Medical Officers, possessing the relevant prescribed degree, issued by an institution, approved as per the guidelines laid by the concerned authorization department. 12. Learned counsel representing the petitioners has raised a two-fold argument, specifically mentioned below: 12.1 Whether the bonus marks so awarded to the said candidates, having experience of Ayush Chikitsak in RBSK Scheme, vide notification dated 28.05.2023 is appropriate and legal or otherwise. 12.2 Whether under the RBSK Scheme, the work performed by the private-respondent, can be equated with the work required under the ‘similar work’ experience, as the work performed by the said respondents, pertains to screening of the children from the age of 0-18 years. CONCLUSION 13. Considering the contentions made by learned counsel for both the parties and upon a perusal of the records, this Court is of the following opinion: 13.1 Considering that respondent no. 1- Deputy Secretary vide letter dated 25.07.2023 (Annexure- R/1), has unambiguously mentioned that the work rendered by the Ayush Doctors under the NRHM and RBSK Scheme is of an alike and homogenous nature, with the work rendered by the Homeopathic Chikitsak/Doctors, under the Ayurveda, Unani and Homeopathy Service Rules, 1973. Hence, the said allocation of bonus marks qua the ‘similar work’ is valid, legal and justified. 13.2 It is a settled position of law that the sole/competent authority to interpret the rules qua any recruitment and selection process, is the authority who has published the concerned rules and advertisement. Therefore, in the matter in hand, the said authority/power of interpretation exclusively lies with the respondent-department. 13.2 It is a settled position of law that the sole/competent authority to interpret the rules qua any recruitment and selection process, is the authority who has published the concerned rules and advertisement. Therefore, in the matter in hand, the said authority/power of interpretation exclusively lies with the respondent-department. 13.3 It is an explicit fact that both the petitioners and the private respondents are holding a valid degree and are certified Homeopathic Doctors. Hence, were selected under the RBSK Scheme, solely on the said ground, having reasonable nexus. 14. Ergo, considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the allotment of bonus marks by the respondents, considering the ‘similar work’ practice, is valid and backed by the statutory confirmation from the concerned Deputy Secretary. Further, it is a settled position of law that the policy/ Administrative orders should not be interfered with, till they are manifestly arbitrary or actuated by malafides. 15. Accordingly, for the reasons stated therein, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.