ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: “(1) the impugned policy decision taken by the ‘Policy Determination Committee’ in its meeting dated 23.07.2024 to held the CHO’s entitled for bonus marks for their working experience on the post of CHO against the post of Nursing Officer and the impugned act of the respondents in adopting the impugned policy decision and thereby awarding bonus marks to the CHO’s while preparing the final merit list in the ‘ Nursing Officer Recruitment 2023 ’ initiated by the advertisement dated 05.05.2023 (Annexure-3) may kindly be declared null and void-ab-initio and be quashed and set aside; (2) the respondent Institute may kindly be directed to re-prepare the final merits of the candidates in the aforementioned selection process, while subtracting the bonus marks awarded to the candidates having working experience on the post of CHO and thereby publish fresh merit list and cut-off marks in the selection process and the appointments of the candidates falling short in such fresh merit list may kindly be directed to be cancelled; (3) the respondent Institute may kindly be directed that after undertaking aforementioned exercise, the respondent Institute shall send fresh recommendations of the selectees accordingly before the respondent Department of Medical & Health Services; (4) the respondent Department of Medical & Health Services may kindly be directed to grant fresh appointments to the eligible candidates on the posts of Nursing Officer and to the petitioners, if they find place in the fresh merit list, accordingly with all consequential benefits. (5) any adverse order or action taken by the respondents, encroaching the rights of the petitioners, during the pendency of the petition, may kindly be quashed and set aside; (6) any other writ, order, directions as this Hon’ble Court deems just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; (7) this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The case of the petitioners is that the persons who had been appointed as ‘Community Health Officer (CHO)’ with the respondent-Department during the Covid period did not perform the functions equivalent to that of a Nursing Officer and hence, they could not have been granted the bonus marks in terms of Circular dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure-2). 3. The case of the petitioners is that the persons who had been appointed as ‘Community Health Officer (CHO)’ with the respondent-Department during the Covid period did not perform the functions equivalent to that of a Nursing Officer and hence, they could not have been granted the bonus marks in terms of Circular dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure-2). 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that even as per the guidelines/job chart assigning the duties and responsibilities of CHOs does not prescribe for any clinical duties essential for a Nurse and hence, it could not have been concluded that they performed any work similar to that of a Nurse. Counsel submits that in absence of any clinical services been provided/performed by CHOs, they could not have been considered equivalent to that of a Nursing Officer so as to entitle them for grant of bonus marks. 4. Counsel while relying upon two experience certificates of two such incumbents (Annexure-10) submits that the experience certificates themselves reflected that the incumbents did not perform the function equivalent to that of a Nursing Officer and hence, grant of bonus marks contrary to the experience certificate itself, is illegal on the face of it. 5. Counsel further submits that it is evident on record that none of the CHOs performed any clinical duty but performed only the supervisory/distribution duties. Even as per the comments of the concerned Committee constituted for the purpose, the CHOs did not perform the functions equivalent to that of a Nursing Officer. Despite the said adverse comments, the Committee erroneously held that the CHOs performed the functions similar to that of a Nursing Officer. 6. Counsel submits that earlier when a policy decision to award bonus marks to Covid Health Assistants (CHA) was taken, the Court in Rajendra Kumar Beniwal Vs. State of Rajasthan , S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14080/2023 & Other connected matters (decided on 16.11.2023) issued a specific direction to grant bonus marks only to those persons who had a work experience similar to that of a Nursing Officer. Similar view was taken by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Pramila & Ors. Vs. State of Rajathan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14794/2022 & other connected matters (decided on 23.01.2023). 7. Similar view was taken by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Pramila & Ors. Vs. State of Rajathan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14794/2022 & other connected matters (decided on 23.01.2023). 7. Per contra counsel for the respondent State while supporting the policy decision of the Committee to award bonus marks to the CHOs submitted that the same is in conformity with the rules. Counsel submits that it is only after taking into consideration the nature of the work performed by the said CHOs during the Covid-19 period that a decision to award bonus marks was taken. 8. While relying upon the Induction Training Module for Community Health Officers as adopted by the State, Counsel submits that the same specifically prescribes for clinical functions also to be performed by the CHOs. Referring to Chapter 6 of the said Module, Counsel submitted that the functions as envisaged in the said Chapter clarifies that the CHOs were under a bounden duty to perform clinical functions. 9. Further, it is not that all CHOs have been awarded the bonus marks but only those who had been engaged with the CMHO office, have been awarded the same and that too, keeping into consideration the experience certificate issued by the concerned CMHO to the effect that they did perform the clinical functions. 10. In support of his submissions, counsel relied upon the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Divya Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5531/2025 (decided on 20.09.2025) and Surendra Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9205/2013 (decided on 18.09.2025). 11. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record. 12. The sole issue in the present matter is - Whether the CHOs performed the clinical functions also i.e. to say, a work similar in nature to a Nursing Officer so as to be held entitled for grant of bonus marks? 13. It is not in dispute that the policy to award bonus marks to the incumbents who had discharged duties during the difficult times of Covid 19, was framed by the State Government to recognise the duties of such workers at that point of time. 13. It is not in dispute that the policy to award bonus marks to the incumbents who had discharged duties during the difficult times of Covid 19, was framed by the State Government to recognise the duties of such workers at that point of time. So far as the validity of the policy decision to award bonus marks is concerned, the same has already been affirmed by various decisions of this Court. It has now been settled that although bonus marks could be awarded to the incumbents who discharged duties during the Covid 19 period but then, subject to a condition that the duties performed by such incumbents were similar to the nature of work qua the post for which the recruitment is to be undertaken. Herein, the recruitment in question is for Nursing Officers and the issue is whether the Community Health Officers performed the work similar in nature to a Nursing Officer. 14. Before proceeding on to the said issue, it is relevant to note that not all the CHOs have been decided to be awarded bonus marks. As per the decision taken by the competent Committee, it is only those CHOs who had at the initial stage been appointed with the CMHO office during the Covid 19 period and then were permitted to join as CHOs and were awarded a basic pay of Rs.7,900/- i.e. equivalent to a Nursing Officer, who have been decided to be awarded bonus marks. 15. Moving on to the issue in question, a perusal of the Training Module for Community Health Officers, provides for the roles and responsibilities of the CHOs as under: “3.2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CHO As a CHO you will be the first point of care or source of information for the health-related issues for the community by the virtue of the proximity of HWCs to its catchment population. Therefore, it is essential for you to understand the population in your service area and identify its common health needs. In order to achieve this, you will need to win over the trust and confidence of the people from the area you serve. You are broadly expected to perform the following three functions: Clinical functions to provide ambulatory (out- patient) care and management Public health functions for health promotion, prevention and disease surveillance. Managerial functions for efficient functioning of the Health and Wellness Centres.” 16. You are broadly expected to perform the following three functions: Clinical functions to provide ambulatory (out- patient) care and management Public health functions for health promotion, prevention and disease surveillance. Managerial functions for efficient functioning of the Health and Wellness Centres.” 16. Chapter 6 of the said Module specifies in detail the clinical services to be performed by the CHOs. The said clinical duties include the health care services in the following cases: (i) Care in pregnancy and child birth (ii) Neonatal and Infant Health (iii) Childhood and Adolescent Health care services including immunization (iv) Family Planning, Contraceptive services and other reproductive care services. 17. Detailing out the aforesaid services, for e.g., for care in pregnancy and child birth, the Module prescribes for the following services: • Early registration of pregnancy and issuing of ID number and Mother and Child protection card. • Antenatal check-up including screening of Hypertension, Diabetes, Anaemia, Immunization for pregnant woman-TT, IFA and Calcium supplementation • Identifying high risk pregnancies, child births and post-partum cases and referral to higher facilities • Screening, referral and follow up care in cases of Gestational Diabetes, and Syphilis during pregnancy • Normal vaginal delivery in specified delivery sites as per state context -where Mid-level provider or MPW (F) is trained as Skill Birth Attendant (Type B SHC) • Provide first aid treatment and referral for obstetric emergencies, e.g. eclampsia, PPH, Sepsis, and prompt referral (Type B SHC) • Sensitization of community regarding entitlements provided by government under various national programs.” 18. The above details are of just one of the services besides the services qua other heads. A bare perusal of the above reflects that the services as provided by the CHOs are clearly akin to those of the Nursing Officers. 19. Further, it is evident that the policy decision has been taken for the reason that the CHOs who were deployed with the CMHO offices, at the first instance, did perform the specific clinical services. Furthermore, the essential qualifications for appointment as a CHO definitely are the same as prescribed for a Nursing Officer. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the CHOs were not qualified to be a Nursing Officer. 20. So far as the judgment in Pramila (supra) as relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same pertain to the CHAs i.e. Community Health Assistants and not CHOs i.e. Community Health Officers. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the CHOs were not qualified to be a Nursing Officer. 20. So far as the judgment in Pramila (supra) as relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same pertain to the CHAs i.e. Community Health Assistants and not CHOs i.e. Community Health Officers. Therein, it was a specific finding that the CHAs did not provide any clinical services which was a condition precedent to claim priority or preference. Evidently, that is not the case here. Herein, this Court is of the clear opinion that the CHOs who have been held entitled for award of bonus marks, did perform the clinical functions similar to that of a Nursing Officer. 21. One more relevant aspect which deserves to be taken into consideration is that even the petitioner herein has been awarded twenty bonus marks because of him having discharged his duties during the Covid 19 period. Once the petitioner has himself availed the benefit of bonus marks, he cannot claim that the other incumbents who also performed the similar nature of work, could not have been awarded the bonus marks. 22. No case for interference is made out. Writ petition is hence, dismissed. 23. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.