Bhairu Lal Balai vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7082 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 212/2022

Bhairu Lal Balai, Village/post Sadara, Tehsil Sawar, District Ajmer, Presently Residing At House No.05/28, Near Hari Sabha Ashram, Jhalamand Circle, Jodhpur (Raj.), Mobile Number 9928919197.

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Ayurved And Indian Medicine Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Ayurved Department, Ashok Marg, Lohagal Road, Savitri College Circle, Ajmer.

3. Dr. Sarvepali Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Karwar, Nagaur Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) Through Its Registrar.

4. Assistant Director, M.s. Regional Ayurveda Research Institute For Endocrine Disorders, Indira Colony, Banipark, Jhotwara Road, Jaipur (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yash Pal Khileree For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG Mr. Sunniel Purohit

HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

12/05/2022

Heard.

This appeal arises out of the order dated 16.02.2022 passed

by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the petitioner's claim for

grant of bonus marks has been rejected.

(2 of 4) [SAW-212/2022]

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the

finding of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner is entitled to

be included in the category of Institution, as provided in Rule 19

of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy

Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the

'Rules') read with Clause 7 of the advertisement, is not correct in

law. He would submit that the petitioner is working in an institute,

which is under the Central Government. Therefore, there is no

reason why the petitioner should be excluded from the benefit of

bonus marks. He would submit that in the case of Satya Dev

Bhagaur & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.(Civil

Appeal No. 1422 of 2022), the Supreme Court has held that the

benefit of bonus marks to those who are engaged in the National

Rural Health Mission or State Health Mission, are entitled to bonus

marks. He would further submit that other similarly situated

employees have been granted benefit but the petitioner has been

subjected to hostile discrimination, which was not properly

appreciated by the learned Single Judge.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

would submit that the engagement of the appellant was in M.S.

Regional Ayurveda Research Institute under the CCRAS, Ministry

of Ayush, Government of India and not in any particular scheme,

much less NPCDCS scheme, in which one Dinesh Sepat was

engaged and was granted bonus marks.

The appellant's claim for grant of bonus marks is based on

his contractual engagement and experience acquired in such

capacity during the period 01.06.2019 to 03.12.2020 in M.S.

Regional Ayurveda Research Institute under CCRAS, Ministry of

Ayush, Government of India.

(3 of 4) [SAW-212/2022]

A perusal of Rule 19 of the Rules read with Clause 7 of the

advertisement would show that the Institute, where the petitioner

is working, is not included in the aforesaid provision.

In fact, we find that the validity of the Rules on such ground

that those engaged in Regional Ayurveda Research Institute run

under the aegis of Central Government, were arbitrarily excluded,

was examined by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Gaurav Kumar Sen & Ors. V/s The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24245/2018 decided on

29.10.2018), followed in another judgment in the case of Ratan

Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 13131/2018 decided on 05.08.2019). Some of

the petitioners in Gaurav Kumar Sen (supra) were holding

experience under the National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur and

other Regional Research Institute at different places. This Court

repelled the challenge to the validity of the rule on the ground that

the rule seeks to arbitrarily exclude the employees of such

institute for grant of bonus marks on the basis of the experience

acquired while working in such institute.

As far as parity claimed vis-a-vis Dinesh Sepat is concerned,

said employee has been admitted to benefit of bonus marks on

the ground of he having acquired working experience in NPCDCS

scheme while he was posted in Community Health Center under

the State as Ayush Pharmacist (Ayurveda). The State circular

dated 15.11.2021 clarifies this position that in such cases the

benefit of bonus marks would be available.

Reliance placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Satya Dev Bhagaur (supra) is misplaced on facts because

that was the case where the persons, who were engaged in

(4 of 4) [SAW-212/2022]

National Rural Health Mission-National Health Mission, were held

entitled to bonus marks upon interpretation of provisions

contained in Rule 19 of the Rules.

In view of the aforesaid consideration, the view taken by the

learned Single Judge cannot be said to be against the provisions of

law.

Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the

same is dismissed accordingly.

(FARJAND ALI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACJ

10-jayesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)