Devanshee Sharma vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8977 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:37386]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14990/2023

Devanshee Sharma D/o Sh. Bhim Dev Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Kullu (Himachal Pradesh) Currently Residing At 39-A, Kamla Nehru Nagar, 1St Extension, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Aayush Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Jodhpur (Raj.), Through Its Registrar.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari.

Mr. Yuvraj Singh Mertiya.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Himanshu Shrimali.

Mr. Jasraj Singh for Mr. Suniel Purohit.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

02/11/2023

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

of the action of the respondents in not including the name of the

petitioner in the list of selected candidates on account of non

awarding of bonus marks, based on her experience at NRHM,

Himachal Pradesh.

2. It is inter-alia indicated that pursuant to advertisement

(Annex.1), the petitioner applied for the post of Ayurved Medical

Officer and inter-alia claimed bonus marks, based on her

experience of having worked in NRHM Scheme at Himachal

Pradesh. Though, the petitioner was called for document

verification, in the list of selected candidates, the name of the

[2023:RJ-JD:37386] (2 of 3) [CW-14990/2023]

petitioner did not find place, based on which, the present writ

petition has been filed.

3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents

inter-alia indicating that under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic,

Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Services Rules, 1973, the

bonus marks can only be awarded, in case, the candidate has

worked in any scheme within the State of Rajasthan and as

admittedly, the petitioner has worked in the State of Himachal

Pradesh, she was not entitled to the award of bonus marks.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the

advertisement made submissions that no such restriction has been

indicated in the advertisement and, therefore, the non-award of

bonus marks is not justified.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent made submissions that

the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules are specific and in pari

materia provisions Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Dev Bhagaur

& Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: Civil Appeal

No.1422/2022, decided on 17.02.2022 has upheld the award of

bonus marks to employees working under the NRHM Scheme in

the State of Rajasthan only.

6. Reliance has also been placed on order in Dr. Sonupriya

Dhakar Vs. Sate of Rajasthan & Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.12812/2023, decided on 06.10.2023, wherein, a similarly

placed candidate for the post of Homeopathy Medical Officer, who

had worked at Jharkhand sought award of bonus marks, which

was denied by the Court.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

[2023:RJ-JD:37386] (3 of 3) [CW-14990/2023]

8. The law pertaining to the award of bonus marks, based on

the language of the Rule, which in the present case is pari materia

with the Rule under consideration, wherein, Hon'ble Supreme

Court inter-alia came to the following conclusion:-

"22. 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 organizations 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."

9. Even under the Rules applicable to present case, the

Coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Sonupriya Dhakar (supra) has

also, based on judgment in the case of Satya Dev Bhagaur & Ors.,

come to the same conclusion.

10. In view of the above fact situation, no case for interference is

made out in the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 73-pradeep/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)