Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Navdeep Singh Maan And Anr vs State And Ors on 2 December, 2023

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:40657]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                            JODHPUR
             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8960/2018

Navdeep Singh Maan S/o Labh Singh Maan, Aged About 35
Years, Rsh-15, Ridhi Sidhi-
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary,
         Medial And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan,
2.       The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services,
         Health Bhawan,
3.       The Director, National Rural Health                     Mission/national
         Health Mission, Swasthya Bhawan,
4.       Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sri Ganganagar.
                                                                 ----Respondents
                              Connected With
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4997/2017
1.       Navdeep Singh Maan S/o Labh Singh Maan, R/o Rsh-15,
         Ridhi Sidhi-Sriganganagar Raj..
2.       Ramesh Kumar S/o Surja Ram, R/o Village Mammera
         Khera, Tehsil Sdul Shahar, District Sri Ganganagar Raj..
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan Through Principle Secretary, Medical
         And Health Service, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
2.       The Addl. Director Admn., Medical And Health Services,
         Health Bhawan, Rajasthan, Jaipur
3.       The Director, National Rural Health Mission/ National
         Health Mission, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
4.       Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sri Ganganagar.
                                                                 ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)         :     Ms. Varsha Bissa
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG a/w Mr.
                                Lucky Rajpurohit
                                Mr. Gaurav Ranka for Ms. Vandana
                                Bhansali, AGC



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 24/11/2023 Pronounced on 02/12/2023

[2023:RJ-JD:40657] (2 of 10) [CW-8960/2018]

1. Since both the instant petitions involve a common

controversy though with marginal variation in the contextual facts,

therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication,

the facts are being taken from the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.8960/2018, while treating the same as a lead case.

1.1. The prayer clauses of the instant petitions read as follows:-

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8960/2018:

"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction your lordship may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition. a. The action of the respondents in not giving him experience certificate and denying him his rightful consideration for appointment in pursuance to advertisement dated 09.04.2018 (An.11) with all benefits on account of providing vertical reservation instead of horizontal reservation to women category aspirants in earlier advertisement may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary and violative to Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

b. The respondents may kindly be directed to issue experience certificate to the petitioner considering his appointment in pursuance to the advertisement dated 04.05.20074 (Ann.1) with all consequential benefits as available to the aspirants appointed in pursuance to advertisement dated 04.05.207 (Ann.1). c. Any other appropriate order which is deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be also passed; and d. The petitioner may kindly be allowed the cost of writ petition."

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4997/2017:

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to allow this writ petition

[2023:RJ-JD:40657] (3 of 10) [CW-8960/2018]

and by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby-

(i) The the action of the respondents while not providing appointment to the petitioners on the post of GNM in pursuance to the first phase advertisement dated 04.05.2007 (Ann.1) with all benefits on account of providing vertical reservation instead of horizontal reservation to women category aspirants may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary and violative to Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to provide appointment to the petitioners in pursuance to the advertisement dated 04.05.2007 (Ann.1) with all consequential benefits as availed by the aspirants appointed in pursuance to advertisement dated 04.05.2007.

(iii) any other appropriate order which is deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be also passed; and

(iv) the petitioners may kindly be allowed the cost of writ petition."

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned

counsel of the petitioner, are that the respondents issued an

advertisement dated 09.04.2018 for recruitment on the post of

Nurse Grade-II in accordance with the Rajasthan Medical and

Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 for almost 4155

vacancies.

2.1 The bone of contention in the present case is that the

petitioners being eligible for the said post and aspiring to apply for

the same, approached the respondents by way of application

seeking issuance of requisite experience certificate, towards the

[2023:RJ-JD:40657] (4 of 10) [CW-8960/2018]

services rendered by the petitioners, but the respondents denied

the issuance thereof.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

respondents were required to accord appointment to petitioners in

pursuance of the advertisement dated 04.05.2007 as directed by

this Hon'ble Court in an earlier round of the litigation vide order

dated 19.08.2008 passed in S.B.C.W.P. No. 4040/2007 with

notional benefits. Therefore, the respondents were required to

grant appointment to the petitioners on the post of Nurse Grade II

in pursuance of the first phase advertisement dated 04.05.2007,

and in that backdrop, the petitioners are entitled for issuance of

the experience certificate towards the services rendered by them

from 04.05.2007.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners

cannot be made to suffer on count of fault of the respondents

department and are entitled for the same benefits as made

available to the other similarly situated aspirants appointed in

pursuance of the first phase advertisement dated 04.05.2007.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the Sardar Patel Medical

Institution of Nursing & Hospital, Abohar, Punjab issued the

experience certificate wherein it was clearly stated that the

petitioner worked as Staff Nurse/Clinical Instructor from

04.02.2008 to 04.07.2016. Therefore, as the experience

certificate was required for appointment on the post of Nurse

Grade II as per the advertisement in question, the petitioner being

entitled for such certificate on count of services rendered by them,

[2023:RJ-JD:40657] (5 of 10) [CW-8960/2018]

approached the respondents for that purpose but issuance of such

certificate was denied by the respondents, which is arbitrary and

illegal.

3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the selection

list dated 18.02.2021 reflected that the last selected candidate in

the concerned category i.e. OBC non creamy layer scored 71.81%,

whereas had the rightful bonus marks been awarded to the

petitioner, he would have secured 71.91%, which in turn, would

enable the petitioner to secure his name in the selection list.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made

on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that in compliance of the

order dated 11.05.2016 passed by this Hon'ble Court in S.B.C.W.P.

No.6207/2009 (Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs State & Ors.) an order dated

25.10.2023 was passed, whereby appointment has been given as

per the advertisement dated 08.08.2007. It was further submitted

that the order dated 25.10.2023 clearly specifies that the

candidates would be selected as per the PIP of NRHM for the year

2016-17 with all benefits accruable from the date of appointment

and the selected candidates did not demand any benefit towards

experience from any prior date.

4.1. It was also submitted that the experience certificate has

been issued to the petitioner from the date of joining i.e.

06.12.2016 and the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 04.07.2018

has directed that the candidature of the petitioner shall be

provisionally considered for the post in question. It was further

[2023:RJ-JD:40657] (6 of 10) [CW-8960/2018]

submitted that the petitioner was considered but the petitioner

was not able to qualify the requirement as per the advertisement

dated 09.04.2018 for the post in question, as the marks obtained

by the petitioner were lesser than the cut-off marks.

4.2. It was also submitted that the petitioner joined the services

on contract basis on 06.12.2016 and prior to that the petitioner

was working at Sardar Patel Medical Institute of Hospital, Abohar

Punjab from 04.02.2008 to 04.07.2016; for said period, as per

the norms, the respondents were not able to issue the experience

certificate, and therefore, the action of the respondents is justified

in the eye of law.

4.3. In support of such submissions, reliance was placed upon the

judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satya

Dev Bhagaur VS State of Rajasthan (2022) 5 SCC 314.

4.4. Reliance was also placed upon the judgments rendered by

Coordinate Benches of this Hon'ble Court in the cases of Kavita

Panwar Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors (S.B.C.W.P. No.

5346/2016 decided on 16.01.2018); Kamal Choudhary Vs

State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No. 1928/2023,

decided on 09.02.2023), and Vipan Kumar VS State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No.13986/2021, decided

27.07.2023).

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

[2023:RJ-JD:40657] (7 of 10) [CW-8960/2018]

6. This Court observes that the respondents issued the

aforementioned advertisement for recruitment on the post of

Nurse Grade-II, and the petitioners claiming themselves to be

eligible for the said post, approached the respondents by way of

application seeking issuance of the requisite experience certificate,

towards the services rendered by the petitioners, but the

respondents declined to issue the same.

7. At this juncture, this Court considered it appropriate to

reproduce, the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satya Dev Bhagaur (Supra),

as hereunder:

"20. It could thus clearly be seen that the Division Bench in Jagdish Prasad [Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan, 2016 SCC OnLine Raj 646] after considering the record, has come to the finding that the Government of Rajasthan has conducted several training programmes for the persons working with it on contractual basis, as well as under different schemes. The training programmes mainly pertain to the peculiar working pattern in the rural areas of the State of Rajasthan including tribal and arid zones. The Division Bench has further come to a finding that participation in such a training is mandatory and non-joining of the same would result in non-renewal of service contracts. It has been held that persons having special knowledge in working in the State of Rajasthan form a class different than the persons not having such experience of working in the State. It was found that the benefit extended by the State policy was only that of giving a little more weightage on the basis of experience and all the candidates were required to undergo the rigor of selection process. The Division Bench has clearly held that the experienced candidates in other States cannot be compared with the candidates working in the State of Rajasthan, as every State has its own

[2023:RJ-JD:40657] (8 of 10) [CW-8960/2018]

problems and issues and the persons trained to meet such circumstances, stand on a different pedestal.

21. We are in complete agreement with the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench. We find that the policy of the State of Rajasthan to restrict the benefit of bonus marks only to such employees who have worked under different organisations in the State of Rajasthan and to employees working under the NHM/NRHM schemes in the State of Rajasthan, cannot be said to be arbitrary".

8. This Court also considered it appropriate to reproduce the

relevant portion of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of

this Hon'ble Court in the case of Vipin Kumar Vs State of

Rajasthna (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 771/2023, decided on

27.09.2023), as hereunder:

"17. The fact that the appellant-petitioner had discharged the same nature of duties to the Nurse Grade-II in the State of Punjab and on the basis of the same, the appellant is claiming bonus marks in the State of Rajasthan for selection to the post of Nurse Grade-II in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 30.05.2018, is not in dispute.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyadev Bhagaur (supra) had categorically held that it is exclusively the domain of the State Government whether to extend a particular weightage to a particular class serving in the State of Rajasthan only and the same cannot be held discriminatory or arbitrary. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel that the appellant-petitioner is entitled to get the bonus marks on the ground that he had discharged similar nature of work to the work of Nurse Grade-II in the State of Punjab under the NRHM Scheme is not sustainable and the appellant is not entitled for bonus marks in the State of Rajasthan.

9. This Court observes that the petitioner worked as Staff

Nurse/Clinical Instructor at Sardar Patel Medical Institute of

[2023:RJ-JD:40657] (9 of 10) [CW-8960/2018]

Hospital, Abohar Punjab from 04.02.2008 to 04.07.2016, and the

experience certificate was duly issued for the said period. This

Court further observes that it is clear that the said experience

certificate was peratining to the State of Punjab. and therefore, as

per the afore-quoted precedent law, the said experience cannot be

counted for joining the post in question in the State of Rajasthan.

10. This Court also observes that the petitioner started working

in the State of Rajasthan on 06.12.2021 and the experience

certificate for the same was issued while counting the experience

from the date of joining. This Court further observes that the

petitioner's experience, for the purpose of the recruitment in

question, was counted for the services rendered in the State of

Rajasthan.

11. This Court also observes that as regards the recruitment in

question, the services rendered outside the State of Rajasthan

cannot be considered, for the purpose of awarding the bonus

marks towards such service experience, therefore, on that count

also, the impugned action of the respondents is justified in the eye

of law.

12. This Court further observes that the petitioner has awarded

the bonus marks as per the joining of the services in the State of

Rajasthan and the services rendered in the State of Punjab cannot

be considered for awarding the bonus marks so far as the

recruitment in question is concerned, and therefore, the impugned

action of the respondents is perfectly justified in law.

[2023:RJ-JD:40657] (10 of 10) [CW-8960/2018]

13. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and in view of the

aforementioned precedent law, as well as looking into the factual

matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so

as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present petitions.