Rajasthan High Court

Dinesh Verma S/O Rameshwar Prasad ... vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board on 20 January, 2021

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1008/2020

1.     Dinesh Verma S/o Rameshwar Prasad Verma, Aged About
       35 Years, R/o Hospital Ariya, Jamavaramgadh, Jamwa
       Ramgarh, Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur-303109.
2.     Shyam Singh Shekhawat S/o Ramlal Singh, Aged About
       28 Years, R/o Saurah Nagar, Haranathapura, Jhotwara,
       Jaipur-302012.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.     Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Rajya Krashi Prabandh
       Sansthan Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018 Through
       Its President.
2.     State Of Rajasthan Medical And Health Department,
       Secretariat Jaipur Through Its Director.
3.     Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jaipur 2Nd.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshal Tholia for Dr. V.B.

Sharma, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Judgment

20/01/2021

1. The issue involved in the present case stands adjudicated by

this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.838/2020 : Sunita

Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected matters

decided on 19.02.2020, wherein it has been held as under:-

4. The grievance of the petitioners are that these certificates have not been considered for grant of bonus marks as provided under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 as the State Government does not recognize the experience gained in establishments under PPP Mode or under MOUs.

(2 of 5) [CW-1008/2020]

5. The issue is no more res-integra and stands decided by the coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal seat Jodhpur in bunch of writ petitions with leading case Savita Solanki Vs. State of Raj. & ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.10030/2018), decided on 10/08/2018 whereby, while relying on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in State of Raj. & Anr. Vs. Manohar Singh & Ors. [D.B.

Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.281/2013] and connected appeals, decided on 27/01/2014, it was held as under:-

"43. The judgment of the Manohar Singh (supra) is directly applicable in the present facts, as the main argument of the State of Rajasthan is that under the Public Private Partnership Mode, the petitioners are rendering their services through the private agencies in the Government PHCs and Sub Centres. Thus, the same argument, which was rendered in Manohar Singh (supra) by the State before this Hon'ble Court, while trying to make a classification between the persons directly appointed by the State and the persons appointed through private agency, was turned down by this Hon'ble Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while observing that such classification reflecting the fact that there was similarity between the nature of work and direct control of the State was established, was not reasonable, and hence, bonus marks under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965 were directed to be given to such candidate(s).

44. This Court also takes note of the language of the aforementioned MoU, which has already been reproduced hereinabove, and finds that Manohar Singh's case clearly reflects the absolute dominance and control of the Government of Rajasthan in running its public health centers and sub/centers, whereby the schemes of the Government are sought to be implemented with the help of certain private agencies. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid MoU prescribes for complete control by the Government of Rajasthan, who would continue to own and have absolute rights over title and interest and ownership of the Centre in question.

(3 of 5) [CW-1008/2020]

45. This Court has also seen that the complete financial control also lies with the State along with the infrastructural control, which goes to the extent of giving the details of the staff and infrastructure. This Court has also seen that the staff is supposed to provide antenatal care. The relevant portion of the MoU in this regard is quoted below for ready reference:-

"Antenatal care (Urine and blood testing, TT immunization, IFA supplements, nutrition counseling, early registration, weighing, blood pressure, position of the baby, check against danger signs and identification of high-risk pregnancies, Referral for Institutional deliveries) Postnatal care, Referral for institutional deliveries, Child Health Services including Immunization, Services under national programmes like DOTS, NVBDCP etc, Family planning including IUD, NSV & referral for terminal methods Lab services Treatment of minor ailments including RTI/STI depot holder services for contraceptive and ORS, Promoters / education and help ANMs for outreach services through social community/link voulnteers. Referrals to be undertaken at the nearest public sector health facility."

46. This Court has also seen that the complete financial control of the Centres lies with the State of Rajasthan including the complete funding thereof, and the norms and rules laid down by the Government of Rajasthan are also applicable, and the Health Programmes have to be implemented through such Centres.

52. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to issue appropriate experience certificate to the petitioners and also to grant appropriate bonus marks to the petitioners, while treating them to be entitled for such bonus marks under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1965. However, it is made clear that this judgment shall entitle only those candidates for grant of bonus marks, who have already filled their forms of ANM off-line or on-line within the

(4 of 5) [CW-1008/2020]

stipulated period i.e. before the last date of the advertisement dated 18.06.2018. It is further made clear that thereafter, appropriate appointment on the post in question shall be given to the petitioners, if they are otherwise eligible and falling in merit. However, in the spirit of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Manohar Singh (supra), this Court makes it clear that the State Government shall be entitled to verify the experience and credentials of the candidates, before granting them the bonus marks. The competent authority, on finding anything illegal, would be entitled to pass appropriate speaking order for disqualifying the petitioner(s)/candidate(s) for bonus marks, only if the experience, upon verification, is not found to be correct. However, no petitioner shall be disqualified for the bonus marks on account of the experience certificate having not been issued until now, and the same shall be appropriately considered by the respondents, as per the directions given hereinabove."

6. In view of the judgment as rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, the petitioners in the present bunch of writ petitions are held entitled to be given the benefit of bonus marks on the basis of their experience certificates for the respective posts. The petitioners shall submit a copy of this judgment alongwith an application before the respondents mentioning the posts for which they have applied and the respondents shall consider the experience certificate and if the same is found to be in order, shall accordingly allot marks to the petitioners by adding bonus marks. The inclusion of the petitioners in the select list on the basis of addition of the aforesaid bonus marks would, however, be always subject to scrutiny of their experience certificate and even after appointment, if later on, it is found that the experience certificate submitted by them is in any manner having any mistake or is forged, the concerned incumbent would be given a show cause notice and thereafter his services can be dispensed with after examining reply.

7. All these writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms. "

(5 of 5) [CW-1008/2020]

2. The petitioners have prayed as under:-

"a) Respondents be directed to issue experience certificate in perform 'A' attached to the advertisement in favour of the petitioners.

b) Respondents be directed to award bonus marks to the petitioners of their experience gained as Pharmacist through PPP Mode services in the State of Rajasthan and after awarding the bouns marks to the petitioners respondents be directed to give appointment in pursuance to the advertisement Annexure- 1 and 2 to the petitioners in case petitioners fulfill the other eligibility criteria, with all consequential benefits and in case any appointment issued lower in merit than the petitioners, then respondent be directed to give appointment to the petitioners from the date when the person similarly situated or lower in merit have been appointed with all consequential benefits.