Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Upama Pareek vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 4) [CW-3824/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3824/2021
Upama Pareek D/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Pareek, Aged About 32
Years, R/o 7-A-9, Bapu Nagar, District Bhilwara (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Services (Group - Iii), Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan,
Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Administration), Now Director
(Non - Gazetted), Medical And Health Services,
Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
25/03/2021
1. Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered
by judgment dated 16.02.2021 passed by this Court in the case of
Savita Manmiya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP
No.2835/2020).
2. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent-State though
is not in a position to dispute the fact that the issue in-principle is
covered in petitioners' favour by the judgment of Savita Manmiya
(supra), he however submitted that petitioner has approached
belatedly (March, 2021). He argued that if the petitioner had any
(2 of 4) [CW-3824/2021]
grievance against non-grant of bonus marks, she ought to have
approached this court within time, as had been done by petitioner
in Savita manmiya (supra).
3. Highlighting that final merit list was issued on 24.01.2020
and appointment order to all eligible candidates have been issued
way back in April, 2020, he submitted that now the State has
operated waiting list and thus, any indulgence granted to her, at
this stage, would affect rights of the candidates from waiting list
who have been called for further process.
4. In rejoinder, Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that immediately on declaration of individual marks and
cut off marks on 22.07.2019, the petitioner had furnished online
grievance on the official portal of the respondents as she was
awarded "0" bonus marks. Petitioner was under the bona fide
impression that the respondents will consider her grievance.
However on issuance of the select list on 18.02.2021, the
petitioner realised that the respondents have issued second list
without appropriately considering her grievance.
5. Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage
submitted that petitioner had secured 47.976 marks and if 10
bonus marks were added she would not have found place in the
first merit list issued on 24.01.2020, as the cut off for her
category (General -Female) was 58.192.
6. As a matter of fact, cause of action has accrued to the
petitioner after issuance of the list dated 18.02.2021, inasmuch as
later the cut off marks have come down and if she is allowed
bonus marks, she would secure place in the list so issued on
18.02.2021.
(3 of 4) [CW-3824/2021]
7. This being the position, in the present factual backdrop and
in view of what has been noticed in para No. 4 & 5 above, in the
opinion of this Court, petitioner cannot be accused of approaching
belatedly.
8. A candidate cannot be expected to take up his/her legal
remedies on academic issues, when he/she is not likely to secure
a position in the merit list/select list.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the objection of delay raised by Mr.
Mehta is rejected. On merit of the case, the case is squarely
covered by judgment of this Court in Savita Manmiya (supra),
wherein following has been held:-
"26. Upon perusal of the certificates of job
responsibilities placed by the petitioner along with the
additional affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner has
been assigned duties in a Government Hospital. Such
being the position, stand of the respondent-State that
petitioner was a Nursing Tutor cum Clinical Supervisor
and thus, not entitled for bonus marks, is in a way
writing off the work she has done, ignoring the fact
that the petitioner has discharged similar work or
duties, which a Nurse Gr.II is required to discharge.
27. In considered opinion of this Court, Rule 19 of
the Rules of 1965, which deals with grant of bonus
marks, is ameliorative in nature. If a candidate has
worked under a scheme of Government and has
performed identical or similar duties, which are
required to be performed by the person manning the
post which is advertised, the State cannot adopt a
telescopic or technical approach to deny grant of
bonus marks to such candidate.
28. State cannot gainsay the fact that petitioner has
discharged responsibilities of a Nurse Gr.II, may be,
to a small extent at least while giving on field training
or giving instructions or at least in emergent situation
or in absence of a nurse. If that be so, the
respondents cannot deny grant of bonus marks to a
Nursing Tutor, as the advertisement uses the
expression 'Expression of similar work' and not work
of Nurse Gr.II per se. In the face of words 'similar
work', the quantum, percentage or extent of work
becomes irrelevant, particularly in the given factual
backdrop.
29. That apart, grant of bonus marks is an impetus
provided to contractual employees, who have worked
under the State Government or under the
(4 of 4) [CW-3824/2021]
enumerated schemes of the Government and thus,
denying the petitioner bonus marks on a rather
technical ground that petitioner's job responsibilities
are not that of Nurse Gr.II, is iniquitous.
30. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The
respondents are directed to grant bonus marks to the
petitioner on the basis of her experience as Nursing
Tutor cum Clinical Instructor. The respondents are
directed to award requisite bonus marks to the
petitioner, obviously after verifying the certificates
under consideration and accord her appointment, if
she is meritorious and otherwise eligible. Needful be
done within a period of six weeks from today."
10. The writ petition is allowed in terms of Savita Manmiya
(supra). The respondents are directed to award requisite bonus
marks to the petitioner, obviously after verifying the certificates
under consideration and accord appointment, if she is meritorious
and otherwise eligible. Needful be done within a period of six
weeks from today.
11. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.3 on
05/06, April, 2021 alongwith her original certificate(s) and other
relevant documents. The respondent No.3 or his nominee shall
verify the same and do the needful, as directed above.
12. The stay application also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
39-Rahul/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
